Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 October	20 October >

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 merge to D12. SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugz[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. He only released one album while alive and I don't see where that would make him notable. Prod tag was removed without reason (along with cleanup tags). Dismas|^(talk) 23:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think releasing an album is notable. Have you ever released an album? Do you know how much work goes into the craft? Beyond having released a solo album of his own, he was a member of a rap group that released albums, making him further notable. This page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.139.87 (talk • contribs)

I believe this page should be kept. To ensure this I have added a bunch of d12's awards. User:Hiya3101 —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article needs work and will never reach even good article status. Bugz is most notable for his violent death [1]. He was criticized for espousing a gangsta lifestyle that glorified guns and violence by many outside the rap/hip-hop niche but revered by those inside. He was (and is) imitated and memorialized. Dozens of wanna-bes use his handle in theirs: New Bugz, Young Bugz, etc. after digging deep into Google results. I agree he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG but the article also isn't WP:NOT. Although a borderline keep, I don't think the history of rap/hip-hop in Wikipedia can be complete without this article, hopefully improved. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 01:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to D12. As this book, and others note his death and membership in D12, the only question is whether a standalone article is justified. As far as I can find, the coverage on Bugz is in relation to D12 and so I conclude that a merge is the appropriate action. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there is any way that I can improve this article to standards that will ensure it will be kept, message me.Hiya3101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to D12 as per Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to D12 as above. I could not find any coverage of Bugz as an individual prior to his death. This to me shows he was probably not notable except for the manner in which he died. Thus, given the WP:1E issues here, I think the appropriate course is to merge any encyclopedic material and redirect to D12. --Batard0 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PMZ Real Estate[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements for companies. Poor sourcing. Yworo (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:CORPDEPTH notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Seems to only be an advert. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PROMOTION. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A news search reveals a significant amount of coverage in the Modesto Bee, but this is not in itself enough to establish notability under WP:CORPDEPTH: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." I found one mention of it in an AP article here, but it's a passing mention in the caption of the third photograph, which hardly even amounts to coverage. Delete for lack of significant coverage under WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. --Batard0 (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Rothe-Kushel[edit]

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

Subject of article does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Lexlex (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. If sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. A news search only found a press release and passing mentions in two sources of questionable reliability. A regular search turned up coverage at Dartmouth, but this is not independent because he's an alumnus. Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of water parks[edit]

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

Listcruft. Likely to be incomplete and unmaintainable. Bazonka (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Listcruft" is just a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT, hardly any Wikipedia article is complete and why should a list of water parks be any less maintainable than any other list? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample sources exist that demonstrate that Water Parks are listed or discussed as a group, both nationally and regionally. Thus this list meets the notability criteria as laid out in WP:NOTESAL. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP as a navigational index of notable topics, as a complement to Category:Water parks per WP:CLN. The nomination is lacking in substance and shows a lack of familiarity with list practice here. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strip entries which have neither references nor articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A books search reveals plenty of sources where these are treated as a group, as required under WP:LISTN. Also meets the WP:GNG, having been covered in a significant way in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Alexis Gritchenko. SarahStierch (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Grischenko[edit]

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

This is clearly a (unsourced) duplicate of Alexis Gritchenko. Any useful content needs to be merged and this poorer article deleted. Otherwise it wil be another 3 years before someone else notices!! Sionk (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful info to Alexis Gritchenko and leave a Redirect for the alternate transliterated spelling of the artist's name. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 02:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above as an obvious duplicate. --Batard0 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to FlightGear. Merge selectively as per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of FlightGear[edit]

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

Fails WP:VGSCOPE #9 as an extensive version history. Fails GNG as a subsection, though could be incorporated back into main article. czar · · 20:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And PROD was removed. czar · · 20:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. TBr and ley 20:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Why are you wasting people's time with this? -- 173.247.200.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the PROD was contested and I wanted to do due diligence. czar · · 23:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG or warrant a split from the main article. Only content not already in the main article (basically, the lead) is WP:GAMECRUFT. To above "merge" suggestion, I have to ask WP:MERGEWHAT exactly? Version history and each version's details are trivia that we don't include. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCHANGELOG would seem to apply. I don't see that there is anything to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I see some verifiable material that could be merged into the main article, but WP:NOTCHANGELOG. --Batard0 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which content is that? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The detailed descriptions under the version headings, although it would have to be sourced and should be done selectively to avoid undue weight. --Batard0 (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and stub~~ - The FlightGear topic meets WP:GNG: Machine Design August 3, 2000, Linux gaming: publishers not playing with the penguin? Deutsche Presse-Agentur April 19, 2003, Aerospace America January 1, 2005, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I posted these links on the article talk page. Stub the article to only include the lead paragraph. If someone wants to expand the article using reliable source material, they can use the sources on the article talk page and what was discussed in this AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into FlightGear article - Oops. I was reviewing the FlightGear topic (I assumed the "History of FlightGear" article was misnamed). The history itself does not meet WP:GNG, so there is no reason for a spinnoff article. The history can be covered in the FlightGear article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Versageek under criteria A7 and G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Djiah[edit]

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

I found basically nothing on the subject in a quick Google search. AutomaticStrikeout 20:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per CSD G3: Pure hoax TBr and ley 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per the above, or as a non-notable biography, non-notable musician, etc. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy afd not needed here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBTestDriven[edit]

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

Cannot find secondary sources to support claim of notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits in google books => spam bin. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has not been widely covered by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. There is no indication that it meets the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 03:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable secondary sources. After reading artical it is aso not clear to me if this is supposed to be a concept or a specific software... Most of the text apare to be copied from [9]. Runarb (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of coverage in reliable sources after a search in news, books and the web. Fails WP:GNG and other more specific guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Duxenberg[edit]

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

Can't find any sources for this individual that indicate notability. I want to assume good faith, but the article feels madeup and the author made this one and only edit two years ago. I think this would have been a prod candidate if created today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a hoax, and there's nothing in Google about this person other than Wikipedia mirrors. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything on Google or Trove. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in news, books or a web search except the Wikipedia article. Very likely a hoax and fails WP:GNG by a mile. --Batard0 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MadGibbs[edit]

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

The article is an unsourced announcement of a not-yet-released debut album. I'm proposing deletion per WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Stfg (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. It's too early for an article on this album; it lacks a release date and any confirmation that it's actually happening. Four tracks have been released, true, but they already have their own articles. If and when this comes out, an article might be appropriate - but, at this point, I think it's premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is this article, where it's mentioned in one line at the end, but there's also this LA Times blog, which I think is a reliable source for this. There's also this, which I judge to be some significant coverage in a semi-reliable source. This is all I can find, though, and I don't think it quite meets the WP:GNG criteria. The coverage has been relatively light, and is all on blogs; even if those blogs are considered reliable to a degree, you'd expect more coverage in the usual newspapers and magazines if this was indeed a significant release. I think it's likely there will be more significant coverage once this is released. Delete with no prejudice to recreation if solid sourcing appears in future. --Batard0 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was reverted and renamed to Makedonski Glas by Rich Farmbrough. The redirect was speedily deleted by Peridon. Non-admin housekeeping closure.--xanchester (t) 23:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MG Services[edit]

Note: renamed to Makedonski Glas

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

Vanity, not notable, local two-person company that is less than 10 years old. http://www.mgservicesonline.com/index.php/about-us pretty much sums it up ColtsScore (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears this article was subject of debate before and was turned down in Article for Creation discussion.ColtsScore (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert/rename to original Makedonski Glas article per GoingBatty below. Delete No claim or evidence of notability. Could go as a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to establish notability and no coverage in reliable / verifiable sources. It's remarkable that this article hung around for more than four years, but there appears to be nothing to add to improve the article to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert - If you look at the history of this article, it used to be called Makedonski Glas. On January 8, 2012, User:Sekigor changed the article from Makedonski Glas (a Macedonian newspaper) to MG Services (a non-notable insurance company). My suggestion is to revert this vandalism and all edits since then and restore the Makedonski Glas article title. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, indeed, well spotted. It is hard to assume good faith in such an overwrite and rename, and it should be reversed asap to return to the former article with its edit history. (The article on the Macedonian newspaper is/was unreferenced and may be open to notability challenge itself, but that is for another day.) Were it not for this AfD, the reinstatement could proceed through normal editing; I'm not sure whether it has to wait or can be closed resolutely earlier than normal? AllyD (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have boldly made the change myself, but I think we'll need help from an admin to undo the page move. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time an article is renamed without rhyme or reason . Unfortunately, the deletions at Wikipedia help hide this phenomenon. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and rename per GoingBatty. The article was hijacked and moved. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and rename I withdraw my request to delete ColtsScore (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and rename per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted and renamed The previous article, however, was created by the same editor, and may also be non-notable. I have therefore re-added the link to this AfD, although if someone wished to close this one and start a fresh one, that would be fine. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Holt (baseball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Former minor league baseball player and manager. Penale52 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. No, the subject is not entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:BASEBALL/N, but SNGs are not the final word on notability. The general notability guidelines of WP:GNG are the final word on notability, but I cannot find any substantial, non-trivial, non-routine coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Try a google search (like this) and you'll find no evidence of notability. AutomaticStrikeout 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article has over 300 hits at the U.S. Google News Archive. A normal Google search is not as helpful because his baseball career was in the pre-Google era. // 91.105.232.27 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GHITS – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable sports player, fails to meet GNG.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly does not meet baseball-specific notability guidelines, but these just establish the presumption of notability. It seems like there's a chance he meets WP:GNG on the sources here, which so what seems to be a significant amount of coverage in major newspapers. Arguably, though, this stuff is routine and mostly deals with hirings, firings, etc. I'm not sure where I stand on this, but would suggest it's not entirely clear-cut. --Batard0 (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per our policies on BLPs the only effective choice here is to delete the article... However there is no prejudice against recreation as long as the article appropriately meets our standards. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Doyle (ex-FBI agent)[edit]

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

Copied from Judi Bari. A seperate page is not needed, for various reasons. TBr and ley 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judi Bari. AutomaticStrikeout 20:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judi Bari - The article is not about Frank Doyle per se, but Judi Bari instead, so a redirect to that article seems appropriate. -- AussieLegend (✉) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article about Frank Doyle should talk about his career with the FBI, his current company (Frank Doyle and Assoc.) and/or appearances on Mythbusters and other activities. This article concentrates on just one case, and not even focusing on his involvement, but the impact on other people, such as Judi Bari. This is written in an accusatory fashion; only statements with a neutral point of view should be present. I disagree with redirecting Frank Doyle to Judi Bari as they are not strongly related; a search for Frank Doyle is not a search for information on Judi Bari. Either make the article about him using a layout common to celebrities, or remove it entirely, until someone does the research and does it correctly. Nutster (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changing my vote based on a re-read of the article. I agree with Nutster's assessment. There is virtually nothing in this article that would suit a BLP on Frank Doyle. Unless I missed something, there's not even a direct link between the MythBusters Frank Doyle and the Frank Doyle associated with Judi Bari, other than a single mention in the first sentence. This is an article best created from scratch. -- AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite I agree this article as it stands is of low quality, but the notability standards for a BLP are met. This needs a rewrite, not a deletion. Some people need to learn the difference. --Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This has huge BLP issues that should be immediately addressed by blanking large sections of the article. Much of it is unreferenced material about his alleged involvement in a killing. It hardly gets more dangerous than this with regard to BLP concerns. Having said this, a variety of news articles in reliable sources easily found in a google search establish this as notable under WP:GNG. If there are problems with the article, the solution is to fix the article, not delete it. Notability criteria are met. I'll try to fix some of these things myself. --Batard0 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A note that I've commented out the first part of the article under WP:BLPREMOVE. I didn't blank it because there actually is a list of references at the end of the article. They're not cited using inline citations to the material, however, which I think makes them problematic. I posted to the talk page about it, and invite any interested parties to fix the issue, which I imagine shouldn't be too difficult. I would do it, but don't have time for it right now. --Batard0 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I would do it, but don't have time for it right now" is the biggest problem with keeping this article. Most of us are too busy and don't have time, knowledge or the inclination to create a reasonable article, so keeping the article is just going to leave the mess for God only knows how long before somebody gets around to fixing it, if that ever happens. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles shouldn't be deleted if they're notable just because people don't have time to work on them under WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. --Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible." There are plenty of unsourced, negative statements in the article as it stands. The list of references don't make the comments in the article sourced. WP:NOEFFORT is about articles that have not been worked on in a long time. This is a new, poorly copied and pasted article that has almost no useful content and very little of the article is even about the subject. Better to delete it and start from scratch. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Fix it/rewrite: There is no evidence of an intent to write a biography of Frank Doyle. Rather, the article shows an intent to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to carry on ideological battles against Frank Doyle. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a Wikipedia:Coatrack: the article discusses the biography of Frank Doyle on the surface, but in reality is a cover for the tangentially related subject Bari v. Doyle. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote a one way negative view of Doyle by using Frank Doyle's name to hook readers into opening the biography of Frank Doyle and slam them with the tangentially related subject. Wikipedia is not a battleground to carry on ideological battles against Frank Doyle. There is no evidence of an intent to write a biography of Frank Doyle. Rather, this page appears to have been created to disparage the subject. Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BLP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satguru Jagjit Singh[edit]

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

Jagjit Singh already exists. This is a duplicate. SH 17:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article Jagjit Singh is not about the religious personality. Nor are any of the people listed at Jagjit Singh (disambiguation). Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It also seems like a mass copy from a site. SH 22:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G12. Every word is copy-pased from this site. It doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:BIO, but that's neither here nor there because the site from which it's copied wholesale asserts a copyright and there's no assertion of permission, etc. in the article. --Batard0 (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've tagged this for speedy and notified the author. --Batard0 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partap Singh[edit]

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

This seems like a mass copy from a web site. SH 17:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion - The article would need a complete rewrite to indicate the subject's significance. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satguru Hari Singh[edit]

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

Seems to be a Copy and Paste of an Internet article. SH 17:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G12 - I believe the author may be affiliated with sikh-heritage.co.uk but I have tagged the article as a copy violation to be safe. I considered reducing the article to a stub but, honestly, there isn't much content to indicate significance and would need a complete rewrite to follow Wikipedia guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgemary Kiss[edit]

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

Article by one of its members about a non-notable band. References do not give substantial coverage, nor do I find any indication that they meet WP:BAND. DePRODded by the article author in 2010. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News only found three results (all of them Australian) here, here and here. The article claims they changed their name to Bones Bones Bones but I found nothing with Google News so the name change probably happened recently or they never gained significant coverage with the new name. The website that the article lists goes to their Facebook page with only one message from April 25 announcing "We might be playing a show tomorrow night". The group, Bridgemary Kiss or Bones Bones Bones, is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found the same sources as Swister above; clearly this isn't enough to establish significant coverage under WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. --Batard0 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Positions South Africa[edit]

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

Not totable Wikipedia:Notability, no content, unlikely to grow beyond a stub. NJR_ZA (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not even asserted. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am busy getting References such as http://www.inc.com together and more information --Jcw69 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this is a sub-unit of National Positions USA, then per WP:ORG, it should be part of that article (which does not exist). Regardless, all I see are press release when I look for sources. I do not accept simply being listed on Incs top 5000 whatever list to demonstrate notability and furthermore, I'll point out that the INcs ranking reference is 1360 and not 130 as stated in the article (typo?), but more importantly is about the company based out of Agoura Hills, CA which means the reference isn't even for the South African company. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Should be merged into National Positions, but that article doesn't exist and the company appears not to be notable. The sourcing I can find is all publicity material and other minor listings that only show that the company exists, not that it's notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG on lack of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double Commander[edit]

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

Software which does not appear to be WP:Notable. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reference nor any reviews about the software which could justify it's notability. comment added by Submitmaster (talk • contribs) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Only provided refs are to developer's site and a French personal site about dinosaurs of unclear relevance to subject. Dialectric (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search reveals no coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. --Batard0 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Once again, clearly this nomination is premature, your allowed to copy text from article's to your own user subpage, it's called userfying an article, and it is allowed. As I've already explained, even if this was eligible for deletion, it would be nominated at miscellany for deletion, not articles for deletion. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley 17:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:wanna Know My Name? Later/iTunes version history[edit]

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

They copied all of wiki and put it in to another page they copied the material from iTunes version history

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 19. Snotbot t • c » 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eliane_Chappuis[edit]

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

Person isn't notable and nor are some of the bits of info about her; poorly written; no links to the references all of which are primary sources TimothyJacobson (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; my first time nominating an article for deletion--TimothyJacobson (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Daily Mirror article about her not good enough?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than one source: see Wikipedia:Notability for the tedious details. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but there were two. Now I added one more reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Daily Mirror article is reliable and substantial, and it is possible to find out more about her, see the list of articles about her [10] (copied from her official website), for example this article published by Berner Zeitung. The article has potential, subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický. TBr and ley 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan M. Blair[edit]

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

Unsourced, but a search on Google reveals little to no notability. Returned sites include social networking sites and sites that reflect information from IMDb (user submitted) and Wikipedia. In this case, the article's major contributor is most likely Ms. Joan M. Blair herself. See her contributions and note the username: Joany. This article acts as a résumé, contains information only the actress would know, and even mentions work in student films. (I came across this article in search of a 1900s to Golden Age actress, Joan Blair.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and other more specific guidelines for actors. There's this article in the Washington Post, but she's mentioned in passing in the space of one sentence. Doesn't rise to significant coverage, and nothing else is to be found aside from the usual credits listings. --Batard0 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Environmental governance#Corporations. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Governance[edit]

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

Term used exclusively by one organization as far as is available in on the internet. Uses concepts similar to some of the topics listed at Template:Governance. Was Prodded, but creator debates, so brought here. Generally, does meet WP:Notability. Sadads (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads view has no verification. The term is widely used, see internet. And of course it is not similar to any normal governance definition. Eco Governance is a term that was,is now and will be of growing significance for the future. (Small note: See conflict of interests in Sadads profile) User Ecosupporters 13 October 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecosupporters (talk • contribs) 07:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is a viable search for Environmental governance#Corporations which covers the material without self promotion. The article Eco Governance has copy-vio's from the single source www.eco-governance.com that is not a reliable source. If this was taken away, the article would boarder on a WP:NEO. All other references that I can find in regards to this are not as a "term" but as organizations and foundations. Pmedema (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked in google books to see if something can be salvaged from this. But it's just a buzzword basically (one book [11] does attempt a def, but hardly anyone else does, so that book is a wp:primary source in that respect.) The wiki article is spam, so WP:TNT and wait for more sources to write about this, if ever. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Xardel‎[edit]

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

Non-notable as per WP:BIO Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to be best known as a French academic. He was Director of ESSEC "one of the foremost business schools in France". He was also Editor~~-in-Chief~~ of the European Harvard Business Review which is a prestigious academic journal. He was most active in the 80s and 90s pre Internet in France so the sourcing online will be difficult, but a search of JSTOR shows a lot of hits as he has published many academic papers and/or referenced by others. WorldCat shows 74 of his books are available in libraries (in various languages [and editions - he has about 14 book titles] (italic text added later)). Picking one title The Direct Selling Revolution shows it to be in 135 libraries, so he has a lot of library exposure. I think the weight of evidence is this is a notable scholar in business management and marketing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His works, including that book, appear to be very very sparsely cited. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet notability requirements as an author (see WP:AUTHOR) and has received negligible coverage by secondary sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not "best known" for anything. I see no source that refers to Xardell as former editor in chief. He has not published 74 books either; the WorldCat listing contain many duplicate entries and translations of existing titles, and many of the entries listed look like very obscure books of no obvious importance. The 6 sources cited in the current BLP don't come anywhere close to demonstrating notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've re-written the article from scratch including new sources and quotes for sources that otherwise are difficult to access, as a courtesy for verification purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not come even remotely close to qualifying as notable as per WP:AUTHOR, not to mention that almost all of the author's (obscure) works were written in French and have little if any relevance for English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see the claim is that he meets WP:ACADEMIC, rather than WP:AUTHOR. Personally I don't think meeting WP:ACADEMIC has been sufficiently shown. Mainly because I haven't seen clear signs of a major academic impact. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that if the argument for notability were based on WP:ACADEMIC rather than WP:AUTHOR, the subject still would not meet the rquirements. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in 2006 an article in the Hindu stated Prof. Dominique Xardel, who is the Assistant Dean at one of Europe's most prestigious business schools Essec in France,[12]. The school's official website would list his current position. Dream Focus 07:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His name does not appear on this faculty list for ESSEC.[13] Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has an active faculty page at ESSEC and the source below says he is current there. If you want to verify it why don't you call the University or email them to confirm. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he is not listed on the faculty page, it would be more accurate to say that the entry you found is an inactive faculty page. But either way, having a faculty page, active or not, does not help to establish notability as per WP:ACADEMIC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, the faculty list you found is not up to date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the college's faculty website list -- what more definitive source is there? Xardel has allegedly been at that institute since the 70s, so I fail to see any validity to the argument about the site being out of date. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is based at ESSEC but we also know he teaches at different schools around the world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is his career history (Google translation):

1960-1977: Various management positions in companies such as Union Carbide, Julhiet Group, Unilever, Union Express and Time-Life International
1978-1988: Director of the ESSEC
1981-1990: Editor of the Harvard-Expansion
1984-1991: President of the European Association of Intercultural Management
1988-1991: Director General of the International School of Business
1992-1999: Director of Marketing at ESSEC Ms.
Since 2001: Director of International Development, ESSEC

According to WP:ACADEMIC #6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" which might be applicable to 1. Director of the ESSEC or 2. President of the European Association of Intercultural Management or 3. Director General of the International School of Business. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(also I would encourage readers to see this version of the article which contains additional information deleted by Rhode Island Red). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He does not qualify even under criterion #6, which states:

"Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g. being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)."

His associate deanship at ESSEC would not qualify -- it is specifically precluded. His alleged directorship of ESSEC would not apply because ESSEC is not "a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center, which is not a part of a university". His alleged presidency of the EAIM would not qualify becuase the institution is not "a notable national or international scholarly society"; in fact a Google search did not provide any evidence that an organization by this name ever existed.[14] The "International School of Business" would not qualify either because it is not a presidency or chancellorship, and the institution does not seem to be notable (I couldn't even find any mention of it on Google[15]). Furthermore, the subject has received negligible coverage in reliable secondary sources, except perhaps for passing mention in a couple of old articles (and passing mention is never sufficient for establishing notability). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ESSEC would probably qualify as "a major academic institution" (WP:ACADEMIC #6) of which he was Director for 10 years. According to the New York Times, ESSEC is "one of France's most respected graduate business schools."[16] According to our very own Wikipedia article ESSEC is "one of Europe's top business schools." It says "Director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)" - ESSEC is not a branch of a University, it is independent. The quotes above show it to be "highly regarded", and could find more if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument fails as well. ESSEC is a college, not an independent research institute, and Xardel did not hold "the post of President or Chancellor" at ESSEC, so he does not satisfy criterion #6 in that regard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC #6 says: "director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center". Director (check). Highly regarded (check). Academic research center (check). ESSEC Business School is a graduate school, one of the Grandes Écoles, which teaches PhD's how to do research which means graduate-level research activity (papers, seminars, etc). As John Z says below, a Grandes Écoles is a big deal. The Financial Times ranked ESSEC the 6th top business school in France [17] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read more closely please and try to focus on the key details. I’ll repeat again, criterion #6 says “director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)”. ESSEC is not an independent research institute; it is a business college. Criterion #6 would require that Xardel hold/have held the position of President or Chancellor at ESSEC, which is not the case. Secondly, Xardel’s official CV shows that he was not even sole director of ESSEC; he was merely “Director of International Affairs” for the MBA program.[18] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was Director of the ESSEC from 1978-1988 [19], his current position is different. His online CV doesn't even start until 1989 so obviously it is incomplete and not a good source for determining prior to 1989. We know he was working at ESSEC prior to 1989 from multiple independent reliable sources. The school does primary research with support from the ESSEC Research Center, created in 1963, in other words ESSEC is a research center. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another of his publications is ISBN 2227320400 Le Bonheur d'être homme: entretiens avec Dominique Xardel of interviews with the French Worker-priest Jacques Loew french wiki article . Xardel is also an amateur pianist who cofounded Festival Les Amateurs !. A French Grande école is a big deal, major positions not likely to go to nonentities.John Z (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A dead link and an internal reference to a WP article with no sources. Swell. Perhaps you can sell the case for notability to French WP; he's clearly insufficiently notable for inclusion in English WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to a number of sources [20][21][22][23] , Xardel was "Editor-in-Chief of the European Harvard Business Review (Harvard L'Expansion)". This would pass WP:ACADEMIC #8: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." "Editor-in-Chief" is rédacteur en chef. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, none of the sources you provided are WP:RS, and an independent secondary source would be required in this case. Secondly, his resume states that he was simply an "editor" (whihc does not qualify based on criterion #6); not editor in chief (and there are many inconsistencies between the entries listed in his resume and the entries floating around on these sketchy looking websites. Lastly, the publication in question is called "Harvard L'Expansion", not "European Harvard Business Review", and I see no evidence of that the publication is notable. Overall, another failed argument. This individual is clearly not notable so why are you grasping at straws? Are you affiliated with Amway? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of ~~deleting~~ editing Amway content on Wikipedia. ~~You are on some sort of anti-Amway crusade (perhaps for good, I dunno, but it's part of your edit history).~~ I on the other hand have a history of being actively engaged in dozens of AfDs because I enjoy saving articles by giving them every possible opportunity by doing the hard research. I don't care if this article is deleted, I've never edited an Amway or MLM article on Wikipedia before. I care that this article is given a fair shot and opportunity ~~and not ramroded by someone with an anti-Amway agenda.~~

Back to the sources: Those are reliable secondary sources. Using a primary source CV isn't how we do things on Wikipedia. "Harvard L'Expansion" was the European edition of the Harvard Business Review, it has since changed (no longer French but split into German and some others) but it was certainly notable in its day. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were offended by my bringing up the possibility of an Amway connection, but since the BLP subject clearly does not meet any of the notability criteria, I was stumped as to why you would keep bending over backwards to keep the article from being deleted. On the flipside, you don't do yourself any favors by saying that I have a history of deleting Amway content (in fact, I wrote a pretty big [and dare I say it, very well written] chunk of the article on Amway) or that I'm on a "crusade" (which implies a POV violation and an assumption of bad faith). So let's just call it even and move on.

Back to the content issues. First, it does not appear that he was ever "editor-in-chief" and the sources you've provided are of low quality. Per policy, primary sources from the BLP subject are sometimes allowable, as long as the material is not unduly self-serving, particualrly when it comes to CV details. The BLP subject's own CV indicates that he was not editor in chief, and this contradicts what's listed in the dubious sources you provided, which incidentally are not WP:RS because there is no evidence of editorial oversight of the contents nor a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Furthermore, WP:ACADEMIC states "it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject", which is also applicable in this case, so even if he were editor-in-chief of this obscure and long defunct journal, the case for notability would still be gossamer thin.

I see no justification for saying that the deletion nomination is being "ramroded (sic)"; quite the contrary -- you've made a Herculean effort to make the slimmest of cases for notability and still haven't succeeded. Deletion is an easy call in this case. But since you don't care if the article is deleted, that simplifies matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was offended by your suggestion of COI during a content dispute and wrote some things that I have since stricken. I care that the rules are followed, not what the outcome is. There will be more people involved in this AfD before it's over so don't be in such a rush to think it is now "simple", it will last weeks. We have differences of opinion about the sources and rules, that is what AfD is about, fact finding and rules applications. I feel like you are giving me a hard time for researching sources and having an opinion that you disagree with.

Regarding the sources: One source is an academic book publishers website, and the other a professionally published book. These are institutions known for editorial oversight. It's true his CV doesn't say "Chief" but since we don't use primary sources we can't rely on the CV when there are reliable secondary sources. This is a well established principle on Wikipedia, if Mr. Xardel's CV said he was President of Paris University in 1975, you would not allow that information unless there was a secondary source; likewise, it's unfair to cherry pick including primary source info because it's convenient to your argument. There could be reasons why his CV doesn't say Chief, we just don't know, that is why we rely on secondary sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this would have been a smoother process if there had been more input from other editors. I have never seen an AfD with so few participants. All of our arguing back and forth won’t amount to much if we don’t get more input. However, I think if we did have more eyes, this would be a straightforward delete. With all the scouring for sources and scraping of the bottom of the barrel, you still haven’t managed to put forth anything that convincingly establishes notability.

The 4 sources that you insist meet WP:RS are a mile away IMO. This site[24] looks like nothing more than a repost of Xardel’s resume; it’s not an article on Xardel; it doesn’t involve journalism; there is no evidence of any editorial oversight or fact-checking -- it’s a low quality source. The other 3 sites are no better.[25][26][27]

The other issue here is that the BLPs subject’s personal CV posted at his faculty page at ESSEC does not list him as editor-in-chief, and it can't be simply assumed that the other sources trump Xardel's own CV. And lastly, the journal in question is obscure, low-impact, and long defunct; and I see no examples of anything from the journal itself that indicates that Xardel was ever editor in chief. BTW, this source seems to indicate that Jacques Barraux was EIC of L'Expansion during the time when Xardel was allegedly EIC (i.e., 1987).[28]

So, in summary, there is not sufficient unambiguous evidence that he was editor in chief; the journal itself does not seem to be notable; and even if Xardel was editor in chief and even if the journal were notable, he still wouldn't qualify for a WP page because WP:ACADEMIC states: “"it is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject". There is a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Anyhow, we've talked this to death already so let's just hope we get some participants or we'll probably have to re-list the AfD nomination. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with your characterization of the sources at all, a Parisian university academic book publisher, a university faculty page and a professionally published book are not a 'mile away' from being RS. But let's not keep repeating, our positions are stated on that point.

This is an interesting source you found[29], it shows a number of things. It shows that Jacques Barraux was Editor-in-Chief of a magazine called "The Company" (L'Entreprise) for the March 87' issue. But Harvard-L'Expansion uses quarterly dates, such as the "Spring 87" issue mentioned in the source, so they are obviously not the same magazine, Jacques Barraux was not Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard magazine, according to this source. The source also calls the Harvard magazine a "prestigious" quarterly which undermines notions of it being obscure. BTW I believe the magazines are still in print and can be seen L'Entreprise and voila L'Expansion - perhaps even the present-day version of the former Harvard magazine. Both L'Entreprise and L'Expansion are owned by the same parent company, L'Express.

Remarkable what turns up with some searching on google.fr. I'm hoping a native French speaker will appear who can help us further. So long as new information is coming to light the AfD will stay open. The process is "smooth", we are doing exactly what should be done: research, investigate, discuss. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Cardamom's arguments above that he meets criteria 6 and 8 of WP:ACADEMIC are convincing. I won't cite all the sources, but I think we can consider things like [30][31][32][33] these reliable enough in combination to establish that he was editor-in-chief of this publication. We can rely on primary sourcing for some of this, as he is unlikely to misstate his position. The fact that one source says he was "editor" is not a convincing argument against the weight of verifiable and reliable evidence that he was editor-in-chief. The editor of, say, the New York Times may call herself the "editor of the New York Times" when in fact her official position is editor-in-chief. Calling oneself the editor of a publication does not preclude one from being its editor in chief. I also find sufficient evidence cited above that he was the director of ESSEC, and that ESSEC is a highly regarded, independent institution. The assertion that it is not a research institution may possibly be the case, but it is clear to me that it is at minimum a graduate institution that is independent, and that it meets criterion 8 in spirit, if not in letter. Now, having said all this, we come to the problem of finding sufficient sourcing with which to write the article. I've searched the French and English sources and am frankly a bit surprised that I'm unable to come up with more information about this person. I can't seem to find any coverage of him in news articles, the mentions in books are brief, and other sources are essentially resumes and short blurbs about his career. The WP:ACADEMIC guidelines are unclear in this regard. They first state that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Xardel meets two of these criteria, and thus must be notable under the guidelines, period. And yet then the guidelines say, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject" and further ask us to consider: "when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" It's tough to say the answer to this second question is yes. He seems quite accomplished to me, but he doesn't clearly stand out. If he clearly stood out, shouldn't we see more coverage in independent sources? Rhode Island Red's arguments are convincing in that there isn't much in the way of reliable sources to base this upon. With what we have now, I don't see how we could possibly expand it beyond a brief stub with a listing of works; that's all we have that's verifiable. Now, having said all that, I also acknowledge that this person's career took place mainly in the 1970s through the 1990s in France. Taking a look at his resume and the books he was writing at that time, it strikes me as likely that there would have been coverage of him in French sources back then, and that it would likely have been substantial under the WP:GNG criteria. We won't be able to see this coverage online because French newspapers are not in the Google news archives, at least to my knowledge, and it's likely French magazines and academic journals of that era have not all put their archives up online for easy access. It's a guess, I know, and there's no guarantee that this coverage exists, but I feel at this time that we should give the subject the benefit of the doubt because we're not able to search for it properly. Rhode Island Red's arguments are well constructed, but on balance I think the best course is to keep the article. --Batard0 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: changed to keep (from weak keep, so it's rather inconsequential) based on Uzma's excellent source sleuthing. I wasn't able to find any of these myself. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets the actual notability requirements both as academic and author. Cited in Responding to Globalization Aseem Prakash; Jeffrey A. Hart; from Routledge, 2000. The cavil as to whether an "editor" is "editor in chief" is a nice tangent having zero bearing here. Meanwhile "Harvard L'Expansion" does indeed seem to be a publication for HBS alumni [34] making that nit a tad useless. Collect (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -

Significant coverage: New York Times October 13, 1982 (the hidden, rest of the article is all about Xardel ("The school, known as E.S.S.E.C., is one of France's most respected graduate business schools. It is 20 miles west of Paris in the suburb of Cergy-Pontoise. The director is Dominique Xardel." The article then is about Xardel and the school)
Significant coverage: Joyce E. Jones (June 1996). "Xardel, Dominique, The Direct Selling Revolution: Understanding the Growth of the Amway Corporation (book review)". Journal of Consumer Affairs. 30 (1): 283. Retrieved October 27, 2012. - Although this is a book review, the review is written in a way that attributes the thoughts in the book to Xardel. As a result, the review provides biographical material for the Wikipedia article.
Significant coverage: Business Line February 10, 2005
Other coverage: Business Line September 8, 2004. There also is reliable source coverage in the French language.

The topic meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uzma Gamal has found clear proof of the notability of this person. Dream Focus 15:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This should not be nominated at AfD, it should be nominated at MfD, although I share Vejvančický's thoughts. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley 16:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:wanna Know My Name? Later/iTunes version history[edit]

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

They copied all of wiki and put it in to another page they copied the material from iTunes version history

Speedy keep and close, seems to be normal user space draft. I'm not sure if content copied from the main space to user space must be properly attributed, however, I've seen similar drafts many times before. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

..and btw, this should go through WP:MfD, not AfD. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeFilm[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Article has no sources aside from a link to the official site (which, being a primary source, cannot be used to assert notability) which doesn't appear to mention them anywhere. No evidence of chart success. No relevant hits found in either a news or book search, and nothing for a main web search beyond the odd video, none of which are reliable sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any sources confirming that the band 'DeFilm' meets our notability criteria. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage in the news and nothing reliable in a web search. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. --Batard0 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to CHFI-FM. If anyone wishes to merge the pertinent information from this article into CHFI-FM they may use the article history. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers and Other Strangers (radio program)[edit]

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

Show does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention at CHFI-FM, Toronto Star, (Ryerson review of journalism, 2001). The sources are not sufficient to compile a stand alone article and I don't think the show is independently notable, however, redirect may be justified. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. I found one mention of the program in the Toronto Star, but little else. This hardly amounts to significant coverage under WP:GNG. Fits best with a couple sentences in the station article. --Batard0 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Ram Avatar Sharma[edit]

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

Could find trivial mentions related to Rajendra Prasad, but no evidence of "significant coverage". The Sahitya Akademi ref is an entry on his son Nalin Vilochan Sharma. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, and having notable proteges doesn't make you notable. Gigs (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like a classic salvageable article to me. See [35] for one of his recently published works. I'm not quite sure how to look for the Hindustan Times article cited but there's no reason to think it's made up, it should be easily verified (or otherwise) by those with access to a relevant archive. Andrewa (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that's exactly right, a classic salvageable article. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the article, discounting flowery prose. There are such refs like that to the Hindustan Times embedded in the text, but their online archives don't go back far enough. That book "Indian Indologists: Ram Sharan Sharma, Rahul Sankrityayan, Ravindra Kumar, H. D. L. Abraham, Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit Ram Avatar Sharma" appears to be partly on him, from the title, so the GNG should be easily met from it. His book, see Paramarthadarsana or Paramarthadarsana was republished in 1994, so still of interest. Ramavatara Sarma 65 gbooks hits & Ramavatar Sarma 39 hits & Ramavtar Sarma 6 & Ramavtara Sarma 11 & Ram avatar Sarma 5 are variants that go to the same guy.John Z (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but someone should do a search in Hindi sources. The sources cited above are not by themselves enough to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR, but in this case I think we ought to cede the benefit of the doubt in the likelihood of significant Hindi coverage, given his apparent status as a leading academic. The sourcing needs to be a lot better, but I think it's quite likely he will meet the criteria if we can get someone conversant in Hindi to help out. --Batard0 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That Indian Indologists book is from Books LLC, which gets it from us, so it doesn't count. But the other, online, sources and the ones in the article already, but not formatted the usual way, like the Hindustan Times article on him are still more than enough IMHO. The problem is that these sources are not online, so need a trip to a good library.John Z (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emma Shapplin#Discography. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macadam Flower Tour Live[edit]

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

Not-notable live recording by Emma Shapplin. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emma_Shapplin#Discography, the artist seems to be notable, the album/DVD exists and redirect is a better solution than deletion ... at least in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I found one minor review in Los Andes but nothing else in reliable sources that would establish notability under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It turns out, Macadam Flower means aging prostitutes: "Just across from the grand Art Deco Opera House, the Macadam Flowers, the aging prostitutes, stood poised on the sidewalk, key in the door, waiting for their next customers."[36] As for the album, there's a mention in October and November 2009 issues of the Jerusalem Post: "preparing her upcoming album Macadam Flower at her own pace.", "According to Shapplin, who will give Israeli fans a sneak preview of the material on Macadam Flower during her two shows here." "Shapplin's gone back to her "roots" and is now trying to market herself as a Frenchpopstar, sans opera, on her upcoming album Macadam Flower." There's nothing about "Macadam Flower Tour Live". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As the relevant information has already been covered in Luan Santana. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luan Santana Live in Rio[edit]

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

Not-notable live album released by Brazilian singer Luan Santana. I made a Google Search and came with nothing to prove notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article Luan Santana after at least one source has been added. CamillePontalec (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His article makes some [unsourced] mentions of the album, so any information here is already there. I see no reason to merge. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any coverage at all of this in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Megadeth discography. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood in the Water: Live in San Diego[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Simply not notable. Apparently, this WAS to be released as a DVD, but nothing has been heard about this project for a long time, so it is probably safe to figure that it isn't going to be released. With that said, that makes it really nothing more than an article about a single concert, whose only accolade is that it was broadcast live on some pay-per-view channel. L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article Megadeth. CeesBakker (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge instead of just delete?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is our common practice to merge less notable recordings of notable bands (and I think Megadeth is a notable metal band) to relevant discographies (Megadeth discography in this case). The DVD exists and the band's discography would be more complete and informative with the mention of the DVD. Merging would contribute to better encyclopedia, it would be definitely better than red link/no information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source acknowledges that the proposed DVD ever received an official release. I have read about bootleg versions floating around though, and that is why I consider this non-notable, it is unofficial, and thus is essentially an article on 1 (or 2 - i forget if they filmed at one or 2 shows) show, when the band has done probably over a thousand other shows.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found six articles where the DVD was mentioned, but it was only mentioned in passing each time and wasn't the subject of the coverage. It fits better as a mention in the Megadeth article, but there isn't significant-enough coverage under WP:GNG for a standalone article. --Batard0 (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1equalmusic[edit]

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

I do not believe this subject meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. There's absolutely no result in news search and web search returns aggregation sites and its own pages like FB, LinkedIn etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Active Soccer[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. App game with no indication that it meets notability requirements. The given links are to the company page and the game's trailer, and to a page about a video game conference that makes no mention of this game. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If The Fox Software was a sizable enough company to be notable it would be merged with that, but that company is not notable. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable sources for WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by GNG. Most significant sources are self-published. czar · · 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not a notable game. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac 15:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2D 3D Animation Studio India[edit]

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

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

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

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

Unable to establish organizational notability. Both citations provided are dead links, lacking historical archived copies; unable to verify content or notability in accordance with WP:ORG or the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cindy(talk to me) 12:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citation provided is dead currently but i searched the google for that link and successfully found its cached on Google search here is the URL for cache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohdnaved (talk • contribs)

First Citation Cache URL

~~Keep~~ It is supported by WikiProject Animation, WikiProject India— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohdnaved (talk • contribs)
~~Keep~~ I saw Animation Studio List that list is very long but detail information about most of the studios as a separate page on wiki is missing, so i think under the Wiki Project Animation we must be fair with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohdnaved (talk • contribs) 13:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is supported by WikiProject Animation, WikiProject India This is a poor argument. Those tags simply mean that the article's topic is relevant to animation and India, not whether it is notable. Especially when you, user:Mohdnaved, the creator of the article, added those tags. Chris857 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Additionally, Mohd, this is the third time you have created this article, without addressing the issues brought forward with previous creations. Again, Wikipedia is not the place to create articles merely to promote your own organization. If your organization is truly notable, kindly wait until someone without a conflict of interest is willing to create an article for you, which meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Cindy(talk to me) 15:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability per WP:Company, can't find any significant coverage of the company online from WP:Reliable sources. Darth Sitges (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't vote multiple times. At the first glance I thought three people have voted for "Keep" Can you show at least one news article coverage or review? No, problem if it is in Indian language newspapers.--Tito Dutta (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not orphan, as i saw that List of animation studio is linking to this page.
Comment Most of the news and content in India is never published online, I recently saw a company who came up with an IPO in india but on whole google hardly 3 pages were pointing to it..So i dont expect much online references for most of the mediocre companies in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.220.135 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have heard about that company in Delhi..being a graphic designer i know its a branded name in the industry. Source : Personal experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.202.121 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability does not mean online references, most of the content in asia pacific region is not online. Companies with Millions of revenue annually and substantial market share generally have a single website online and not much online reference. I did some local search engine searches and thus suggest a strong keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.25.232 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the reference which was earlier dead, is working now. It again shows that in India not much importance is given to online presence by majority of the companies, thus finding an online reference is not very easy and suitable for most of the Indian mid size companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohdnaved (talk • contribs) 12:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references do not establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Archdeacon of Barnstaple. Equivalent to a merger, as all the information from the source article is already at the target location. Sandstein 07:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Fitsrogo[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. GBooks search produces 5 hits, none of which are significant coverage as far as I can see. This merely verifies that he was Archdeacon of Barnstaple. Google web search returns mostly Wikipedia and its mirrors. Other searches return nothing. !Voters may wish to search for William Fitzrogo as an alternate spelling. Unless the position of archdeacon confers notability (and I don't see why it would), I see no reason to keep this. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:V does not require that references are readily and immediately verifiable by anyone through the internet. Europe is very rich in history and the institution cited is a very well established university. For people who became notable through modern technology is expected to have great internet accessible verifiability, but I wouldn't expect the same for historical figure from 1300s that maybe notable. WP:GOOGLEHITS go over these points.

But WP:GNG does require that there be multiple sources which cover the topic in significant detail, these are absent here. If you have access to such sources by all means add them. I can only search the resources to which I have access. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply yes, they do, however the credible source, University of London's site includes a citation to non-electronic resource including page number. Consulting that resource may provide additional answer. Lack of accessibility online is not a reason for deletion. Internet accessibility is not a requirement as stated in overview section in WP:RS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that lack of sources available online equates to non-notability, I am claiming that I have performed WP:BEFORE to a level that would be expected of someone living in a different country than the subject. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Archdeacon for a year? Not notable, as far as I'm concerned. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Barnstaple which contains as much information as there is on William Fitsrogo. British History Online cites Bishop Stapleton's register, p188, and while it's nice to assume this is a prolix and colourful biography of Fitsrogo, it's better to actually look up the reference, which is easily done online[37]. This source is clearly not sufficient for notability, with no information beyond date of office (note there's a discrepancy between Old Style and New Style dates). How many reliable sources will there be about someone who was in office in the early 15th century (decades before printing began in England), and who held a fairly minor office for a matter of months? At best, a name in a register here and there. If information miraculously appears, the article can be recreated, but right now there's no evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had three similar articles proposed recently so...... please read these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_Plemth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham to see if it helps whether we should have a mass deletion of similar articles I think now would be the time to decide this once and for all Bashereyre (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Archdeacon of Barnstaple, which is essentuially a list article. At this remote period it is unlikely that we will ever get significant information on archdeacons. I would suggest that that article should be restructured to allow a short paragraph on each individual, for whom there is insufficient information for even a brief article. Here we have no more than a name and dates. At one stage there was a redliunk for every peer and baronet, but the NN ones have now gnerally been delinked. I would suggest that the same should apply to ecclesiastical functionaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Archdeacon article – this man is clearly not notable. In future, I would like to see the less notable ADs bio'd in fuller Archdeacon of X articles – I've just not had time to go about it myself :( D B D 07:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that someone expert like DBD goes through the templates removing the [[]] from the non notable ones, as anything in red suggests an article should be created? These repeated deletion requests/removals (4 I know of; plus others speedily deleted) clearly indicate a feeling that these are not necessary. This is the first debate not to have someone suggesting an archdeacon is of sufficient rank by office to merit an article regardless of the lack of facts; or, if these are available, merely indicate he discharged his office competently.Bashereyre (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that I had the time, Bash! There must be more "experts" than you and me. I'd like to point out that my redlinking articles is not to suggest that they ought to exist, but rather where they ought to be if they were created (i.e. ensuring consistency internally and with naming guidelines; in fact they often serve as a reminder to myself when those articles are created elsewhere...) D B D 11:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 14:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Jason_Dominus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I looked around. The subject or Kibology doesn't appear to be notable. Checked Google News across all date range. A few mentions, but no major coverage. This person has been nominated for deletion twice in 2005, but the argument provided for notability was lacking in both nomination. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's quite a bit of coverage of his book Higher Order Perl, coverage which also indicates his importance in Perl. Add to that the other press coverage and it's enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (you might also argue that as an influential computer scientist he gets notability that way). --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ridiculous stuff about Chinese and Korean names has been removed and the Kibology bit is irrelevant. Citations have now been added (by Colapeninsula) showing that he and his book are notable in Perl circles, which is probably good enough for WP. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to nom's assertion, Kibology is considered notable by Wikipedia; perhaps she should started with Wikipedia when she "looked around". (Disclosure: I am the subject of the article.) —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrary to the usual etiquette, the nominator has not notified the creator of the article or any of its major contributors of this AfD discussion. She has also not notified WikiProject Perl, which I would have expected. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would have been unusual. You don't know Wilipedia, which is why you ran into issues. --No unique names 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worldcat shows his book in almost 400 libraries, with multiple editions. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was going on her Kibology and I was specifically searching for that. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be a borderline notable WP:AUTHOR and somewhat prominent member of the Perl community. Referencing should be improved and trivialities removed, though. —Ruud 00:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking claim to notability, also TNT to fix major COI[38]. --No unique names 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied to User talk:Corn cheese/Rise of the Zombies Wifione ^Message 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Zombies[edit]

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

meets wp:crystal, based on one reference that looks like a fan page. Could not find anything verifiable on google about premier of this film. Wikishagnik (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Right now at this specific point in time, there is no coverage of this film except with various places re-publishing the official SyFy press release. Both of the current sources on the article rely entirely on primary sources and wouldn't show notability, as reprintings of press releases do not count towards notability. It's fairly likely that the film will get some coverage due to its cast, but that's no guarantee and we can't keep articles based upon "probably will". I have no problem with someone userfying the article until sources become available.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to neutral. I'm a little leery about keeping an article that hasn't received any coverage beyond reprints of the PR, but considering that it's so close to premiering and has the cast members it does, I'll bow to the rationale below.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look like a fan page? Corn cheese (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corn cheese (talk • contribs) 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy at this point, as it violates WP:CRYSTAL. It is too soon to create an article about this right now. TBr and ley 01:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am inclined to say "keep" for several reasons. First, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because we can have articles about upcoming films, especially if "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This film is completed and is highly likely to be screened; films that have not started filming are far less likely to be completed and screened. I do note that solid coverage is lacking at this point but would not be surprised to see it emerge in the lead-up based on Trejo's involvement and seasonal (Halloween-type) coverage. So it kind of falls in that gray area between holding onto this article and getting rid of it. I would prefer to hold onto it and reassess the topic's notability later. Another comment: it seems like we should have a "List of Syfy original films" since I'm sure that we do not have articles for all their films (and thus the category would not be helpful). If we had such a list, I could support merging this article there until we can determine stand-alone notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AKA: Dead Walking

Keep per Eric's cogent observations above. Also known as Dead Walking, a special point to remember here is that we are not speaking about something not yet filmed, nor about something with a tenuous release date in 2013 or 2014 or 2015. We have confirmation that filming has been completed, confirmation of an air-date less than 3 weeks away, and enough reliable sources available with which to flesh out the article.[39] What can be easily addressed through regular editing does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This is not a WP:CRYSTAL situation, as described. It still does not meet the WP:GNG requirements, which require significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however. The only sources cited are press releases and listings, which are WP:ROUTINE. There is a possibility that there will be secondary-source coverage after it airs, however, and thus I think the most judicious solution is to userfy for possible future use. In the meantime, I recommend making a brief mention of the upcoming program in the Syfy article, where it easily fits in under "Syfy original movies", and redirecting this to that section for now. --Batard0 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect while keeping the history? I found a few non-PR reliant sources via Dread Central, so I'm going to hope for the best with all of this. If all else fails, I wouldn't mind userfying it. I'm a little bit of a Trejo fangirl so I wouldn't mind putting in the work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just found a source that says that this movie was originally filmed under the title "Dead Walking", so I'm going to do a search based on that. I thought I'd drop a note here for any new editors coming into the AfD to check back to see if I can find anything usable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. Just saw it was already mentioned above. I guess I need more coffee. In any case, I couldn't find anything I could actually use here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Keirstead[edit]

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

Fails WP:Soldier notability Gbawden (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see from the page history the page was nominated for deletion before (not by me) but the page author removed the deletion tag Gbawden (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to say I don't see the notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this minor military bureaucrat. Qworty (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with no particular claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Doolittle Raid. Although I'm redirecting the article, for editors interested in merging, I've not deleted the history before redirecting; therefore they could easily get material to merge subsequently. Wifione ^Message 13:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard E. Cole[edit]

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

A World War II, United Stated Army pilot who co-piloted a plane during the Doolittle Raid. He co-piloted the plane Doolittle was on. Unfortunately, Cole does not meet WP:SOLDIER as he was not a flag officer, did not receive the Medal of Honor or multiple Distinguish Service Crosses and did not command a substantial body of troops. While the Doolittle Raid is famous, all 75+ people involved do not warrant an individual article. Cole is mentioned in the Doolittle Raid Wikipedia article as one of the last 5 surviving raiders. There is some news media on Cole, especially related to the 70th anniversary of the raid, but the stories give a paragraph of what he and/or the crew did in the raid or have quotes from him. I can see a Wikipedia article that gives some detail on what happened to each plane and their crew, but until then, a redirect to the raid's article could be a solution. Prod was contested with "Not a chance" and a plea for discussion on the talk page, but they have not engaged in discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Doolittle Raid as a WP:ONEEVENT example. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid. The rank of colonel and two relatively low-level decorations are not sufficient for notability. Nor is being one of the people involved at a low level in a famous event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid. He did too little. "Low level"? Hah! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unintentional, but yes... -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with slightly trimmed full details into an expanded Surviving airmen section of Doolittle raid. Being selected to be in plane #1 means something, unless it was a lottery. (If he had made a more significant contribution to the mission, or had become notable for something else in his life in addition to the raid, then a separate article could be justified.) --Lexein (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete all Wifione ^Message 13:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels on Sky[edit]

(View AfD · Stats)

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

Following the process here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, I am confident that we have both policy (NOTDIR) and precedent working against Wikipedia hosting these articles. They serve no purpose despite claims that WP:USEFUL can be invoked. It's not useful, in any sense, to have a list of television channels on a website which can be edited for good or bad purposes at the whim of anyone who feels like it. It's not necessary to show channel listings when Sky subscribers already have a channel guide in front of them by pressing a button on their remote control. It's against WP:NOTDIR to have television guides as articles, and the two AfDs linked above show that this definition has been widened to include channel guides too. I will contact editors from these nominations after completing this one to make them aware of my decision to use their deletions as inspiration for this one. doktorb _words^deeds 06:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment 22 October Please note that the AfD has been modified to add a whole phalanx of related articles, all of which I recommend for deletion. I will now contact all editors on this article to make them aware of the modification. doktorb _words^deeds 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a tough call. Until you get to the very end the article is unsourced, but at the end in the "future" or "proposed" section are 40 good sources, so that section at least is shown to be encyclopedic, and article is already not a directory, reliably sourced, etc. So at minimum this equates to a rename to List of proposed Sky channels. However the rest of the article indicates the TVphile's tendency to believe that not even primary sources are needed, which is extremely contrary to WP principles. Assuming the primary sources exist the rest of the article is more defensible on the fact that it is supplemented by reliable sources for the "future" section, but it would still need secondary sources for the "present" section as well, so that equates to a fixit. Further, there are obviously 16 linked articles (first is Entertainment, last is Radio) that do nothing other than duplicate the unsourced data in this one, and so the position above is consistent with delete the other 16 articles due to redundancy and thus POV imbalance, and add those 16 articles to this nom or even speedy them separately from this AFD. OTOOH, there are two other articles linked near the end (besides the other 16 "main" articles) that are extremely well-sourced, so those 2 articles should be kept also (if ever nommed under the flawed NOTDIR rationale invoked here). But since the future and the past are so well-sourced the fact that the present is lacking both primary and secondary sources is basically a large, correctible flaw. As to NOTDIR itself, the sudden recognition that consensus has allowed 480 such articles and the sudden regulars who have gotten a handful deleted are not an indication that lists of channels are directories; if the channels are network affiliates rather than content providers we seem to have no problem including lists of channels that are controlled by a single entity, even though the affiliates are a much more controlled case. So I will await that voice of reason that will arise to speak for the prior consensus that the principle behind the 480 articles does not violate NOTDIR, and then we can figure out just what lists of channels we do keep. As opposed to programs, a list of channels is a list of contracts, not a directory (program or otherwise). 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of McDonald's locations is also a "list of contracts" in the same sense, yet that's pretty much the classic example of a NOTDIR violation, so that...alternative characterization...doesn't change anything. Which isn't even an accurate characterization anyway, given that there are a comparative handful of media companies (e.g., Viacom) that own most cable channels, so far fewer "contracts" than channels listed. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that NOTDIR is somehow concerned with sourcing, which it isn't. If an article's content and subject are not verifiable, then it is deleted per WP:V. If it is verifiable, then it still may be deleted per NOTDIR, so merely pointing out that the list is sourced does not accomplish anything. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only about 100 such articles that are a problem. The 480 number seems to include "List of (national network) affliates" which are not the same as the Sky article included above. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'd object strenuously if anyone tried to delete the network affiliate lists. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per NOTDIR as affirmed recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and per the new additions, none of them are any different than the original nommed list - delete all -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the noms I did for the two previously indicated AFDs. (I would have also included all the sub-channel lists that exist for Sky at the same time too, per IP's .112.21 reasoning). --MASEM (t) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete all now that all the other Sky listing have been added. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [all] per NOTDIR as explained in detail in the previous AFDs; I see no reason to treat this differently. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (amended 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. I wrote much more about the problems with these articles at the List of AT&T U-verse channels. A major objection I expressed with that article was the wide range of regional variation and frequent changes in AT&T's lineups; maintaining that article was akin to maintaining a sandcastle in the tidal zone. I suspect that's not as much of a problem with a satellite broadcaster, but I still thing NOTDIR still applies. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AFDs A. B. brings up another good point as well. As time goes by these don't always get updated when channels change and they become a mess of disinformation. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simple "Wikipedia is not a directory" grounds, nothing more to see here. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on NOTDIRECTORY grounds. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, ~~here~~ is a list of the articles in Category:Lists of television channels, which in all total about 480, but (after excluding the obvious keeps in "Lists of American television network affiliates‎" and excluding duplications) ~~appear below as~~ only 320 at this moment. You could also make an argument for excluding those sorted geographically, and excluding templates, and excluding the 16 Sky subarticles that qualify for speedy deletion, and you might get to about 100 that way. The point is that, if any of the remainders are nommed and kept, or not nommed at all after discussion, why then we've found that consensus solution for how to keep a list of channels by company after all. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So tell us, how much are you paid to argue on behalf of retaining this and other article related to cable/satellite tv companies? I think it is pretty clear to anyone that looks into your extensive and narrowly-focused edit history that this zeal is above and beyond that of one who is simply here to expand an online encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the presumptive question, it has such a way of focusing matters. I am not paid at all to argue or to edit at all, whether from this IP or from my segregated account User:the "good guy". My edit history is admittedly self-chosen SPA and it would be appropriate to tag me as such. I think the variety, quality, and constructiveness of my edits within my selected topic speaks for itself; and I am recognizing the group position here but politely awaiting process to determine whether any lists of "channels by company" will remain via consensus or whether the category will be emptied and deleted. Please defer further questions about me to my talk: 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 100-some that are a problem are those listed in Category:Lists of television channels by company. --MASEM (t) 06:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Masem, looking forward to the community decision on whether the category and all subcats will be emptied. No comment on the adds to this nom that are not among the 16 directly linked via main/details links. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, comment on content, not on the contributor. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As my intent was only to provide a helpful list that can be checked against until it is all redlinked under the prevailing hypothesis, based on the above I am whittling the list down only to the 65 unduplicated titles remaining in "by content" or "by company"; this also includes most of the Sky titles under discussion. Apparently affiliates and lists by country, language or region are not being axed. (I have also tweaked a few category listings to make this distinction clearer; see my history. I see that there has also been some speedying and redirecting going on in the interim.) Naturally, I am still of opinion that if consensus or inertia should retain any of the below titles, other titles can be structured on the same principles as those retained. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Channel lists

Arbitrary break one[edit]

Delete all obviously for violating WP:NOTTVGUIDE (part of WP:NOTDIR) and because consensus in prior AFDs said so. Shall I go on further just to avoid violating the essay WP:AADD? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, and the comments I've made at those pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the actually nominated articles per WP:NOTDIR, and as failing WP:N. This does not include the "otherstuffexists" listing of other irrelevant things such as the lists of actual television station in a nation or a US state and templates related to TV which were introduced in an obfuscatory and disruptive manner by 12.153.112.21. Edison (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this nom is itself an OSE argument, as it relies much more on the fact that previous noms have succeeded than it does on the actual text of notdir. I appear to be the only one continuing to wave the flag planted by others that notdir does not exclude company-based lists of channels. My list above that you refer to was merely a result of a miscommunication; prior conversations were speaking of deleting all "lists of channels" but now it's clearly just "lists of channels by company", which is a much clearer and more agreeable demarcation. It remains to be seen whether the category will be totally emptied or whether historical reviews such as List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom (a very keepable article spun off from Sky coincidentally not listed in the phalanx above) can be kept within the category. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have pointed out in both previous AFDs, WP:NOT (and NOTDIR by extension) purposely is not written as fully inclusive lists of what WP is not. Just because "lists of channels by company" is not listed under NOTDIR does not mean that lists of that nature are exempt from the intent of NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would be interested to hear arguments in favour of that former TV channel article! That could be my next AfD doktorb _words^deeds 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arguably, if you remove the channel numbers from those tables, that list is reasonable to keep. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I pointed out that when guidance is silent we go by consensus, not just as expressed in similar AFDs but also as expressed in the creation and sustenance of similar articles. But that's not important right now. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. And NOT is not silent on the issue, because directories fall within its scope - with consensus used to distinguish which directors are actually problematic. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete all Sounds like a WP:NOTDIR broken record in here. But seriously, Edison, postdlf, and Tarc have said it all. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to a "List of channels in nation", e.g. List of channels on Sky Deutschland to List of television stations in Germany. Although in my experience the latter can become awkward to edit and read, a case of WP:TOOLONG I guess. Under WP:NOTDIR lists can be kept if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. In the case of Sky (UK and Ireland), there is evidence that prominent listings on Sky can increase viewership by a significant amount[40][41][42] and failure to gain any listing or carriage can cause in the closure of a channel altogether.[43][44][45][46]

The function of an electronic program guide or TV guide is primarily to provide scheduling information for current and upcoming programming, which is not present in these articles. WP:TVSHOW also backs up the idea that WP:NOTTVGUIDE is about not listing programming schedules.

McDonald's locations or phone numbers in New York are largely trivial and in general aren't mentioned on Wikipedia, meanwhile there are thousands of articles on television channels, most of which include Template:Infobox television channel and make use of the fields for channel numbers per provider often in addition to mention in the prose. I'd say that the majority of channels in the lists also have their own article. The lists are therefore useful in bringing together related articles in television and navigating the subject. At around 1,000 views per day for the Sky article[47] there's an indication that a non-trivial number of people have also found some use for it.

There is some suggestion that one company would control access of the service and therefore the article, this isn't the case as the services are often open and regulated, explained in the third paragraph of Sky (UK and Ireland)#Technical information, this extends to the allocation of numbers.[48][49] This also allows free-to-air, free-to-view or separate subscription channels to exist on the platform, it's also possible for a broadcaster to refuse to be added or fail to negotiate terms.

The idea that articles shouldn't exist on Wikipedia because the information exists elsewhere contradicts WP:NOR, nor is there anything limiting readers to subscribers. Any article on Wikipedia could be edited for good or bad purposes, that doesn't make them useless. Quite a few of the votes here are just pointing at a policy or guideline and the definition of a directory is vague enough to apply to all lists, it's hard to see why the "List of (national network) affiliates" example given above should be kept when they present very similar information (name, number, owner etc.). - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone is arguing for deletion of lists of channels broadcasted within a nation/region, which seems to be a reasonable think to track. We're specifically focusing on the broadcasters (cable/satellite) lists of what subset of channels they offer, which can be subject to local variation and frequent changes. No, those aren't electric program guides, but they do fit the concept that NOTDIR outlines. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the channels on satellite/cable would also broadcast in the nation/region and be listed just the same, with the same potential issues. Would terrestrial/over-the-air lists also end up under an afd discussion? The UK doesn't currently have many local television channels below national level (1?) with most services also available nationally and retaining the same line-up. I'd guess that would be the case across most of Europe because of the limited physical size/audience of each county. List of channels on Sky only contains one local channel (BBC London 94.9 - radio), as does List of channels on Virgin TV (Seven (UK TV channel)). After a quick look at some of the large countries in Western Europe, ignoring that it's a nation article List of television stations in France has the most local variations I've seen but with only 5 terrestrial channel numbers affected, none of which are on their satellite/cable services according to the article. Growth in television channels in the UK has also stagnated, with new channels usually announced well in advance (see List of channels on Sky#Future channels and events). It sounds more like an American TV issue to be honest. Wouldn't it make sense to just remove local variations from national services where the vast majority of the channel line-up is the same in all of the areas it serves? At what point does a list turn into a directory? - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last question is exactly the unanswered issue. My answer is that it a list of channels only becomes a true program directory when it starts listing programs. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR I've made the same point on the U.S. equivalent AfD running in parallel with this, but I think this is clearly definable as a directory of TV Channels and that's one of the things that wikipedia is not. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I am using this wikipedia page for research right now. I do not live in Italy, I am working for a production company. It would be very difficult for me as a foreign, non-subscriber to find a list of which channels are offered in another country for their subscripton or broadcast services. Even going to Corporate websites they are not as easy to navigate or as thorough in explaining which channels are what kind of broadcast or differences in availability. This is not just a meaningless list but a guide to branch off into researching other information about these channels. Just because it seems meaningless to you personally doesn't mean that it isn't informative to other users of Wikipedia. Lanaii7 12:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)— Lanaii7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia seeks encyclopedic articles first and foremost, not "useful" ones. From WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and wikipedia is not here to provide services for a corporation by providing a better directory than they do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with chance of snow - delete per NOTDIR as affirmed recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels; why must we go over the same ground again and again? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note: I have created another AfD which is similar to this one. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Under WP:NOTDIR. These are not encyclopedic topics and Wikipedia is not meant to be a universal repository of all trivia. There is a place for current TV directories; this is not it. Carrite (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a directory of channel listings or an electronic program guide--Hu12 (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 13:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pallur Eman Nair[edit]

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

Non-notable. Horrible writing. Doesn't even make much sense. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google Books found results so it's not a hoax but it needs a complete rewrite from users familiar with the subject. Unfortunately, considering Pallur Eman is Indian, additional sources may not be English and I have notified the noticeboard for India-related topics. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with SwisterTwister. There is a real systemic issue with this one. There are likely to be plenty of Malayalam sources but, alas, we do not have a lot of contributors who are competent in that language. The problems of transliterating his name also impact on searching- experience tells me there are far more variants than those currently listed. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to have been a relatively notable figure in his time and place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been greatly improved since nomination - it could still do with more sources (particularly when one of the two most depended on is over 100 years old), but sources even for fairly important Indian people more than a few decades back seem to have a tendency to be offline and/or not particularly recent. But what is now there is enough for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per PWilkinson, article is greatly improved since nomination. Nominator's reason for nomination is Non-notable. Horrible writing. Doesn't even make much sense - of these reasons, non-notable and Does't make much sense issues are attended; the issue of horribel writing is to be reviewed, perhaps? -Rayabhari (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, the article has been significantly improved since this nomination started. I'm inclined to close this AfD but, if other users want to comment, feel free. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 13:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Kanodia[edit]

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

Completely non-notable, despite the hyperbole in the writing. Reads as a promotional article by the subject, complete with what appears to be a press release. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 19. Snotbot t • c » 05:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest not to delete as He is well known Gujarati Actor and worked in many Gujarati Films mainly popular in rural audience. I suggest clean-up and reconstruction. --Nizil (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: After checking Google News coverages, I have absolutely no doubt on subject's notability. In Afd you are requesting copyedit? You may get some help in WP:GOCE. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may be poorly written, but a Google search confirms the subject is an ex-MLA, passing WP:POLITICIAN. A quick GNews search suggests he might also pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. For Leontopodium alpinum - who seems as feisty as they come - there might be sense in reviewing our reliable sourcing guidelines appropriately before nominating articles further. Please feel free to write to me for assistance. Wifione ^Message 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Vlad[edit]

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

Non-notable. Reads like an advert written by the subject, completely unsourced and poorly written. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 19. Snotbot t • c » 05:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable per nom. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Can be copyedited to fix tone. Can be sourced and copyedited to be better written. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of your "sources" really provides notability. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they exist "provides notability". --Michig (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they're junk sources, as is the case here. I "enjoy" your "attitude". Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are Vibe and the Gulf Daily News junk sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. AutomaticStrikeout 02:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why your RfA failed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leontopodium alpinum (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 13:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Restaurants in Patna[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. PROD removed by article creator. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. it is a directory. ~ihaveamac [t|c] 03:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only is it a directory, but it contains WP:PUFFERY - KFC is notable, but not specifically "famous" because of their restaurant in Patna. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a directory. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. TBr and ley 15:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 13:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random Things[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP issue, as well as a notability problem Go Phightins! 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, this YouTube series, if true, would not meet the notability requirements. Unsurprisingly, Google News found nothing. It seems the only support is that YouTube announcement submitted 6 days ago. Simply because two school students say this is going to happen is not confirming anything. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, no real indication of notability anywhere, looks like it was something made up on one day. If I was being uncharitable, I'd also suggest it was complete bollocks due to mentioning "announcement/rumor" several times. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and is original research. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Neptune (Toshinobu Kubota album). While delete is the apparent consensus, I'm given to believe that the merge suggestion by Sysmithfan is not one that others may be averse to. If they are, please request me on my talk page and I'll delete this article. Otherwise, the decision is merge for now. Wifione ^Message 13:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funkin' On Neptune Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Funkin' On Neptune Tour

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

WP:CONCERT#Notability. Tour without any coverage in independent reliable sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The page has not been up for even 7 days. You ask people to contribute, but you do not give them the time to do so because you are requesting or removal of something. Why are you trying to delete this? What is the real purpose for asking for its deletion? Give it time to grow. Sysmithfan (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size doesn't matter. If this were a one sentence article that indicated why it was notable with a reliable source, I'd have no reason to nominate it. Maybe just merge to Neptune (Toshinobu Kubota album) as the tour that supported that album. Nothing shows why this tour warrants its own article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having the page here for only two days and then talking about deleting it, does not fair. Especially when there is nothing linked to this page except the support album (Neptune), in which case, meant that this page was still underdevelopment. I believe giving more time to expand this page, would be more appropriate before we start talking about deletion. There is currently 3 references on the page. I highly suggest giving the page at least two months to expand before deleting it. That sounds like a reasonable agreement. Sysmithfan (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I am merging the tour page with Neptune. That way, everyone is satisfied. Because apparently User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars can not wait for this page go. Nominating an article within two days of its creation isn't very good conduct. Giving the article at least two months to expand and flourish would have been more appropriate, but whatever. Lets merge this with the supporting album's page. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the notability criteria outlined at WP:CONCERT#Notability. This is basically just a track listing page sourced using an Yahoo Auction entry and a fan's blog writeup. --DAJF (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that this was a 1992 tour, I think it will be hard to find internet sources. It may be necessary to find printed sources. I checked the Asahi shinbun database and found nothing, but in the Yomiuri shinbun database, I found two articles:

1992.07.01 新作「ネプチューン」ひっ下げ　久保田利伸が全国ツアー夕刊芸能Ａ 08頁

1992.07.08 ソロ歌手の久保田利伸　新作「ネプチューン」に伴う全国ツアーを開始夕刊夕ラジ 13頁

I suspect that there may be a few more sources in other papers or in popular weekly magazines, but I may have a harder time searching those. Michitaro (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TBr and ley 05:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**Note to admin: the above "keep" !vote is the second by this user in this AfD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all tours or concerts are notable, especially if there is a lack of independent coverage, and this one is no exception. A mention in the album's article should be enough. Nothing to merge, either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a notable tour, just like most concert tours. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Green_Day_discography#Live_albums. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS: No evidence of any significant secondary source coverage. In 8.5 years the article has never consisted of anything more than an infobox, lead sentence, and tracklist, nor can it since no sources seem to give it any more coverage than that. The only source ever cited is simply a listing at Allmusic that consists of nothing more than the cover art and tracklisting. I performed a good-faith search for sources in all the usual places one might expect to find coverage of an album, particularly one by an artist as notable as Green Day: These included Allmusic, Billboard, Metacritic, Google News, Google Books, and a plain ol' Google web search. Nothing I found went into any detail beyond a tracklist, nor gave any indication of any in-depth coverage, critical analysis, or anything other than a passing mention. IllaZilla (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything from a coverage on it. Corn cheese (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green_Day_discography#Live_albums - It seems the album received little coverage, which is not surprising for a group's early days. Google News found insufficient sources, here, one French article, one Italian link and one Taiwan list of Green Day albums. There wasn't a Billboard page so it may not have charted and probably only released a limited number of copies, but it is significant for the Green Gay discography. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Day discography#Live albums per SwisterTwister. This is a probable search term and redirects are cheap. Cliff Smith 00:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 13:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Empire[edit]

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

Short lived game that is now retired not sure if notable enough. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The BAFTA Award hits the bullseye on the notability scale, and Gamezebo are on the WP:VG reliable sources list. The article could do with extra refs, and this could be difficult given its short lifespan, but the two refs we do have more than meet the notability requirements. - X201 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the Reception section and added a reliable source for the closure along with the reason behind it. - X201 (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ merge. The BAVGA award really is its saving grace—it's notable for that alone, but minimally. Minimally. I was a "weak keep" for this reason, but the article's essentially a stub and will stay a stub since there are no other reliable articles available to prove notability. Moreover, there will be no more RS to come as the game was closed a year ago for low activity after 1.5 years. The choices here are permastub or delete, and I err towards the latter. Alternatively, someone can merge its contents into Playfish and give that article some legs. czar · · 22:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think merge would be appropriate JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per X201. A few other sources [57][58] - hahnch e n 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Have managed to find IGN and Devlop ones as well. - X201 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per X201's and Hahnchen's source hunting. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Green_Day_discography#Live_albums. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth (Green Day album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS: No evidence of any significant secondary source coverage. Article has been entirely unsourced since its creation 7.5 years ago and has never consisted of anything more than an infobox, lead sentence, and tracklist, nor can it since no sources seem to give it any more coverage than that. I performed a good-faith search for sources in all the usual places one might expect to find coverage of an album, particularly one by an artist as notable as Green Day: These included Allmusic, Billboard, Metacritic, Google News, Google Books, and a plain ol' Google web search. Nothing I found went into any detail beyond a tracklist, nor gave any indication of any in-depth coverage, critical analysis, or anything other than a passing mention. IllaZilla (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything on it but the Wikipedia article itself. Corn cheese (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green_Day_discography#Live_albums - It appears the album was released in Japan so it's likely sources may be Japanese, especially if it was successful there. As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking, I found one minor mention here and another minor mention at an Estonian website. As I mentioned at Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking, the lack of significant sources is probably due to the group's early days where they weren't as well-known as they are now. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Day discography#Live albums per SwisterTwister. This is a probable search term and redirects are cheap. Cliff Smith 00:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Double Teamed. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poppi Monroe[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Double Teamed. I did a search, but ultimately the coverage Monroe has received has predominantly been in relation to her role in Double Teamed. None of her other roles have been so overwhelmingly notable that she could potentially pass WP:NACTOR for playing various significant roles. Since she's ultimately really only known for her Disney movie, I say that a redirect to that film would be the best action at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Double Teamed - I agree with Tokyogirl79, all of the results I have found with Google News and Google Books are for Double Teamed and this appeared to be the most significant work of her career. I also found a TV listing through a newspaper article here for a Disney TV series, Hollywood Lives. I also found a payment required news article here (second result from the top) regarding her The Last Don appearance. As I mentioned, it truly appears Double Teamed was her only significant role along with some minor roles. For such a cute girl, it's a pity she couldn't have had a more successful career. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Without discrediting Qworty or Uzma's arguments, it's quite evident that the sourcing issues might be easily overcome with some effort. Current sourcing details provided do give one confidence of this article's notability promise and so do the keep !votes. Wifione ^Message 13:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ni-Oh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ni-OH

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

This seems like a case of WP:CRYSTAL for a game and film project that never came to anything. But I could be wrong, needs looking at by peoplewho know the sector Spinning Spark 01:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that's what it looks like, but I think the article just needs to be updated. The game has recently completed the alpha cycle (http://andriasang.com/con261/ni_oh_alpha/), so it shouldn't be much longer. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated to reflect the current state of development. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. ~~Its IGN and Kotaku refs are not RS (WP:VG/RL) but I agree that a better effort can be made.~~ There is a line that should be removed/clarified to avoid speculation (per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VGSCOPE #8) but otherwise it handles the concerns of its last AfD sufficiently. It's a stub. And since it's in development/near release (or sourced as such) and created by well-established dev/pub Team Ninja and Tecmo Koei, it's worth keeping for its notability. czar · · 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you're linking to the reference library (archives of gaming magazines); perhaps you intended Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources? Both are listed as reliable sources for WPVG. I'm not sure what sentence/material you're referring to, but if you leave a comment on the talk page I'll try to address it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, you're right—I confused the two and meant /S. I've struck the area. I still don't think the news blurbs (RS) alone grant the article notability, but the project is notable based off of its creators. If it failed WP:CRYSTAL, it doesn't anymore. czar · · 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gotcha, I think that's a fair statement. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've added another AfD above, the original article was deleted twice through AFD (and rightly so), and recreated three times against policy. The old text may also have been a copyvio. The version that is currently at that location shares none of the text of the original version, being rewritten from scratch. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough coverage in third party reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG, and enough content to establish a pretty good Dev section. It's been officially announced, has a name, and in the alpha stages; I see no valid reason to apply CRYSTAL here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the release date is unknown this is a case of CRYSTAL BALL. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note, the above SPA account appear to have as main purpose voting delete in almost all the Japan-related AfDs. Cavarrone (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's totally arbitrary. WP:CRYSTAL specifically only applies to unverifiable information, and even specifies that "dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." The idea that verifiability hinges on whether or not the developer disclosed an arbitrary non-definite date doesn't hold water. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. What's the point of having the policy if we're never allowed to use it? Listen, folks: The future is ALWAYS unverifiable. That's why it's called "the future." It makes no sense to say that WP:CRYSTAL applies only to the "unverifiable" future. It is--literally--a laughable argument, LOL. Qworty (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you quite understand the policy. It's not a reason to go about deleting anything without a release date. It's when nothing is known about the topic and/or so the article resorts to nothing but original research. For instance, if the artice was Untitled Tecmo RPG and the article consisted of "Untitled RPG was announced on October 12, 2012, and fans expect it to release in 2015" - then you'd have a clear-cut case of CRYSTAL. That's not the case here, there's plenty of verified information, by reliable sources that have reported on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is impossible in the universe in which we live. We cannot verify anything that has happened "in the future" because the future hasn't happened yet. The future is by definition unverifiable, which is why the policy WP:CRYSTAL exists. If/when this item is released, AND if/when it becomes notable per our policies, it will merit an article. Not before. Qworty (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not an article about an event that will take place in the future, it is an article about a game that was developed by Koei, that is being developed by Team Ninja, based on a script that was written by Kurosawa. They are planning on releasing that game, but if that does not happen it will not erase history like the prom scene in Back to the Future. The article is written about things that have happened or are happening and those facts have been verified by sources deemed reliable by WikiProject Video games. The only part of the article that could conceivably be targeted by WP:CRYSTAL was the word "upcoming", so I've changed that to "as-yet unreleased". Now tell me which part of the article, exactly, contradicts which part of WP:CRYSTAL? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Upon reflection, the prom scene in Back to the Future represents erasing the future. Many apologies to the proponents of responsible temporal causality. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The phrase "as yet unreleased" makes the entire article deletable under WP:CRYSTAL. I've known a lot of people in my time who have tried to predict the future, usually over trivialities such as this one, and my reply to them is always the same: "Stop wasting our time; if you really know the future, just give me tonight's Lotto numbers." The fact is that nobody can predict when this thing is going to come out, or anything else about the future. That's why WP:CRYSTAL exists, and that's why this article doesn't belong here. Again, if/when this thing actually comes out, AND if/when it is demonstrated to be notable per our polices, then and only then should we have an article about it. Qworty (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm really trying to understand what you think WP:CRYSTAL is about, and why this article does not meet WP:N. Is it that you think an article should not be written on a product until it is commercially available? If something is worked on but never released, you think that negates any coverage it has received until that point? Or is it that any topic, no matter the coverage, that is tied to an arbitrary future timeframe is not notable until that timeframe has passed? Either way, the logic is flawed, for the reason I previously mentioned. The 2014 Winter Olympics will always be notable even if they never happen, because of the amount of coverage they have already received. Contracts have been made, plans have been drawn, etc. That coverage exists. We cover things because they are notable, they have been noted, notations have been made. We do not know the future so cannot and do not rely on future events to validate inclusion.
        I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bring up WP:OTHERCRAP. In fact, I was going to ask you not to bring up WP:OTHERCRAP, but I was curious what example you would use for WP:OTHERCRAP. Regardless, WP:OTHERCRAP is never a reason for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Just to be absolutely clear, WP:CRYSTAL means we cannot report on things that will happen, we can only report on things that have happened. The development of this game has happened and is happening (you don't argue that point, correct?). Whether the release of the game will or will not happen is irrelevant to inclusion, as that is not the basis of the article. Obviously you are not arguing that the material is not true until the game is released, at which time it will have always been true. If you don't get the concept or aren't actually reading any of this I should probably stop trying. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you actually looked at the sourcing? It's REALLY lousy. It's from seven and eight years ago. I'd say that if these people are still actually working on this, they'd better hurry up. Since the sources are that old, how do you know they're still even working on it? The whole thing is really, really flimsy. You're making a lot of assumptions about something that probably is NOT happening right now and the future of which we cannot verify. Qworty (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        On an unrelated topic, Ragnarök does not appear to have happened yet. Should we delete that article until we can confirm that Surtr has covered the Earth in fire? Second Coming? Or is it enough that the topics have been blanketed by reliable sources, and we can include them whether or not they actually come to pass? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Just more WP:OTHERCRAP. You seem to be on a real WP:OTHERCRAP roll now. Please stop. WP:OTHERCRAP can't be used in AfDs. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yet another WP page you can link to without understanding the content. Yes, I did mention other topics, to illustrate to you that your conception of policy cannot be extended past this article, and that your perception of policy has no basis in policy. WP:OTHERCRAP is about using similar articles as a defense or attack, not as a sarcastic example to illustrate your own logical fallacy. The article stands very well on its own, even if you can't grasp that or the policies behind that. If you don't wish to actually read comments before responding to them, or to actually read policies and essays before linking to them, that is your right as an anonymous internet citizen. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some VERY strange arguments for inclusion. "There are some people somewhere working on a thing. The sources say they were working on it seven or eight years ago. Maybe they are still working on it. Maybe they will finish it one day. Hey--I know!--Let's have a Wikipedia article about it!" I can't believe we're even discussing this. Obviously, none of this is a credible rationale for having an article. Qworty (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet again, under what conditions do you think that an unreleased work warrants an article? Are you saying that WP:CRYSTAL means that any work that is not yet released for public consumption is inherently non-notable? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a very weak grasp of what AfD discussions are all about. This is NOT the venue to be arguing about article verifiability in general. There are other places on Wikipedia to do that. The purpose of this AfD discussion page is to talk about THIS ARTICLE, and not about unrelated policy issues or WP:OTHERCRAP. So please try to stay on topic. As for this article, it is very poorly sourced and concerns something that hasn't happened. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. If you want to argue the appropriateness of the WP:CRYSTAL policy, go there and click on "talk" and you will find a talk page where you can make your observations and arguments. This isn't the place. Qworty (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lol, ok. Per WP:Ambox Suggestions. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but your conception of CRYSTAL is either wrong or not the way it's commonly enforced. If we enforced it like that, there wouldn't be a single article for any video game (or product in general) with a future release date; game articles could only be created on their release date or after. You can cite WP:OTHERSTUFF all you want, but we're not talking about a random article here or there; there are hundreds of well-sourced, unreleased video game, book, movie, etc articles out there that would easily survive at AFD. As should this one. Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - And those hundreds of video games were worked on for seven or eight years without being released? And the articles about them rely on a couple of small sources that amount to nothing better than blogs? Go ahead and bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF. You'll find that this article doesn't measure up to the standards you yourself would care to apply. Qworty (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There is consensus that enough of the sources are considered reliable. (See WP:VG/S.). Length of development time and whether or not its released are not valid criteria for or against deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 10:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a non-notable/unconfirmed aspect of a specific franchise (Godzilla (2012 film project)) I would favour a merge, but as it is there are enough sources for an independent article on this game. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:Proves itself to be useful,seems stable.Here are some links,

www.ign.com/games/ni-oh/ps3-711566

www.gamespot.com/ni-oh

ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/oni

www.1up.com/games/ps3/ni-oh

ca.ign.com/images/games/ni-oh-ps3-711566

98.71.52.142 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those database entries in particular aren't the best examples, but they do lead to plenty of good, third party coverages. For instance:
This right here alone is four sources that are non-controversially reliable, as seen at the prior consensus at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a few hits

One sentence: "Displayed in Japan: Five Fresh Playstation 3 Games ; (And One to Keep An Eye On)". Electronic Gaming Monthly (196): 18. October 1, 2005. Retrieved October 25, 2012. {{cite journal}}: |section= ignored (help)
Not independent of the topic: * "Ni-Oh ; Game as drama". Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine (111). December 1, 2006. Still pretty; still very mysterious. Pub. Koei Dev. Koei {{cite journal}}: |section= ignored (help)

The topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided 4 reliable sources. What about those? Or the Andriasang one? Or the other ones in the article? Sergecross73 msg me 04:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or the dozens that are in Japanese. Do a search for "光栄仁王" (Koei Ni-Oh) or "コーエーテクモ仁王" (Tecmo Koei Ni-Oh) or "プレイステーション仁王" (PlayStation Ni-Oh) or "黒澤明鬼" (Akira Kurosawa Oni). I just didn't see much of a point in scraping those since there are more than enough RSs already used in the article. It seems that Uzma Gamal may be making the mistake that was made above, confusing the magazine archives for the reliable sources? I'm not sure why the included sources wouldn't suffice. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessen Noviello[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted through a bundelled AfD (see articles talk page). PROD was contested but still notability has not been established with reliable references. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I only contested/declined the PROD because the previous deletion via AfD renders this article ineligible for deletion via PROD, not because of any particular opinion as to whether or not the article should be kept/deleted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - and a CSD is also inappropriate since the original AfD was bundelled and done in 2006. An AfD clarifies.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe he qualifies under the general notability criteria for entertainers (his roles/amount of roles appear to qualify him); the lack of reliable sources is a problem that must be rectified, however. dci | TALK 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Paparusa; I still think he comes close but I suppose the lack of truly significant roles disqualifies him, as does the lack of decent sources. dci | TALK 00:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence given that he's had any significant roles. Appearing on a short-lived reality show doesn't show notability (or the cast members wouldn't have been deleted originally) and his other roles have been exceedingly minor. For example, according to IMDB his role on Grimm was essentially listed under "also appearing". The article's only source is IMDB and that's not considered a reliable source. Even if it were, it shows that the subject doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE or WP:ENTERTAINER. There's no evidence he's had multiple significant roles in anything. Astudent0 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CubicExplorer[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search engine results show no really reliable sources; notability certainly isn't asserted. dci | TALK 02:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I managed to find a few brief mentions of the software, like this New Zealand PC World article, but nothing that qualifies as extensive. Fails to meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese4[edit]

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

The article does not cite sources establishing its notability, and a search does not turn up reliable secondary-source coverage. Hence it fails the WP:GNG test and WP:NWEB. Batard0 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If page survives AfD, should be moved to Chinese for Europeans as the proper name of the project - see http://www.chinese4.eu/. PamD 10:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and rename as above) - have improved the article somewhat. PamD 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, prose-wise, and should probably be renamed as suggested. My concern is that I can't find secondary, reliable sources independent of the subject who have taken notice of it. A regular Google search reveals little. A search on Google News and Google News Archives only produces an article from 1889 about gambling in China. The cited sources in the article are both related to the subject. It would be nice to keep this; am I overlooking something? Perhaps there's been coverage in Chinese... --Batard0 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that neither of the references is independent (one is a partner and one a responsible government agent. We have a long history of deleting such projects at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-ScienceTalk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMET (EU project), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL Project EU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter2Geo, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scape project, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol-primett (project), etc. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no notability and there's a lack of reliable secondary sources. --Cold Season (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not meet WP:WEB. --Breno ^talk 10:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~keep~~ no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since my original close I have found out that one of the users that commented, SirAppleby is a sockpuppet of MountWassen. Though SirAppleby's reasoning wasn't very strongly based in Wikipedia's deletion policy, excluding SirAppleby from the count is enough for me to change my close to "no consensus", per WP:NOQUORUM. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Internet Exchange[edit]

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

It has no references as to why, it is notable. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No context. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The context looks perfectly clear to me. What problem do you see with determining the subject of the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to admit that the topic is obscure to me but that must not be the reason for deletion. Having a close look at the category Internet Access Points in Asia, I feel compelled to vote for keep in order to remain consistent with Wikipedia's previous policies. Apparently, some people find this information useful ... But I garee, that the article should be expanded SirAppleby (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Quite notable and well referenced. Google Scholar should be the place to search for links of this exchange than the web. Here's the parent link.[59] Other than than, we have quite some research reports referencing the exchange.[60][61][62]. Wifione ^Message 12:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reliable sources presented to show the State of Arianiti ever existed. We don't create history, we report history using sources to actual evidence. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State of Arianiti[edit]

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

This state never existed. In 1432 Berat was already part of the Ottoman Empire since 1417. In 1431/1432 Ottoman census of the Sanjak of Albania Berat is surveyed as important Ottoman town. During Arianiti's 1432 revolt insurgents failed to capture any important town and rebellion was crushed in 1436. Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The dates may be wrong but that has nothing to do with WP:NN [63]. As the nominator already knows I've been using extensively a 2012 monography on the Arianiti family to expand these topics. Instead of creating such AfDs he could ask for some scanned pages.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will quote something you wrote few minutes ago: Disagreeing without sources to support your disagreement is a non-view i.e

The link you presented does not present any proof that this state existed.

No, I know nothing about "2012 monography on the Arianiti family" which supports existence of this state. If it contains any information about existence of this state please bring some quotes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked page as well as The three great principalities of the 14th century had completely decayed. As a result of the feudal struggles, by now three other great domains were created. One of them was that of the Dukagjin nobles which stretched on the present districts of Lezha, Mirdita, Dukagjin and Puka. The other was that of the Aranit nobles, which stretched over the regions of Shpat, Qermenika and Mokra. from [64].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article state created in 1432 during Arianiti's 1432 revolt, which existed until 1444 and whose capital was Berat. There was no such state. Insurgents did not create any state. They were defeated and Berat was under Ottoman control since 1417. The source you presented does not support that such state existed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It did not exist for long, but it definitely did exist. It's too bad if modern Turks don't like it, but there you have it. Qworty (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence are you basing that "strong keep" on? Potential sources that I can find, such as ISBN 9781438110257 (p. 28) and ISBN 9783825282707 (p. 31) say that Arianiti led a revolt in 1432 and held out until 1439 (so there may be a case for renaming Albanian Revolt of 1432–1436) but say nothing about him controlling any significant territory or establishing the apparatus of a state. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is only a short and should be expanded.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded with what - if the state never existed, keeping the page in anticipation of better references is an exercise in futility. Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is an area of hisotry of which I know little. One possibility would be to merge it back to Albanian principalities. Sovereignty in this period could exist in various degrees. A polity could be quasi-indpeendent, but still subject to a superior power, who left an inferior ruler to get on with the business of governement. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that would apply in this case. The superior power was the nascent Ottoman Empire, which certainly did not tolerate Gjergj Arianiti. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but they didn't mind allowing others from the Arianiti family to act as timariots, since they didn't want situations like that of Kurvelesh (1432-6) to be repeated. The dates are wrong; their territories existed possibly as vassals of Karl Topia until the late 1380s, then as fully independent domains until the 1410s, and as an autonomous principality of the League of Lezhë in 1444-67, when the Ottoman defters mention them as captured.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Gaius Claudius Nero . SirAppleby (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Gaius Claudius Nero didn't give any valid reason for keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any source that even suggests that Gjergj Arianiti created any entity that could be described as a state. We base articles on verifiable published sources, not unpublished monographs. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find the evidence for the existence of a state very compelling. I agree that during this period various leaders in the Albanian area engaged in relatively independent action despite owing Ottoman suzerainty. Sometimes the Porte was glad for strong local leaders because it kept banditry down. I'd say that a second source to a reliable publication would be necessary in order to keep this article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Though it appears the region/city/state may have been short-lived, it seems (from the sources cited above) that it did exist. I think the nom's statement that the rebellion was crushed quickly could be included in the article, but that's not a reason to delete it. My keep !vote is not without prejudice to merging to Gjergj Arianiti. Lord Roem (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Wynne-Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable freelance journalist under WP:GNG. Runner up for an award, and there's been other coverage of routine job moves, but nothing more and nothing rises to significant coverage in reliable sources. Batard0 (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When using the rule WP:GNG the criteria say to delete this article, because virtually everything concerning this person has been news stories written by him. However, the list of these stories takes up pages on a Google search for 'Jonathan Wynne-Jones'. I looked at many of these stories and they are mostly very sound news stories. He has addressed some very unique and newsworthy subjects. The only problem is the lack of independent information about him. I cannot in good faith recommend deleting the article, but it clearly does not meet the criteria to be kept under the WP:GNG rule. Also, the article is only a stub. Much more information needs to be in the article.Bill Pollard (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG is not a deletion criteria, but a notability guideline. Reliable material that is not part of a notable topic should or can be merged; and if a topic is not notable, it may already be covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and a merge or redirect is appropriate. Unscintillating (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What article could this conceivably be merged into or redirected toward if it does not meet WP:GNG? --Batard0 (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really sure. I looked at some ideas, but maybe another editor can suggest something. Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found 40 articles (ref) in mainspace referencing this author. Unscintillating (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate Delete As Wpollard said, everything I find is written by him, not about him. As much as I agree that the articles are sound, I fail to see how he passes WP:GNG. That said, I think it would be a worthwhile project for Wikipedia to look into a separate notability guideline for reporters, because there is rarely coverage about them, just coverage they wrote on someone or something else making it tricky to pass WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 02:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very weak delete per Go Phightins! above. He doesn't pass GNG, and there really aren't reliable sources that cover him. Furthermore, I don't think the subjects he is known for reporting on really distinguish the reporter that much - they're important, but fairly commonplace, and he wouldn't have received as much coverage, say, as someone caught up in the Egyptian Revolution while reporting last year. dci | TALK 02:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there is a case of impersonation, we must take it seriously. In this case, it seems the evidence is not entirely clear. A remaining possibility is that both pseudonyms refer to the same person. However, I took into account that Francesca Felucci had earlier been deleted as non-notable. It seems that greater harm will be potentially be done by keeping the article than by deleting it, and it seemed that relisting would not likely uncover new information. There are various routes for undeletion requests if someone can come up with convincing evidence that she exists and is notable, and what the connection between the two personas may be. However, it seems that even then, the article will need extensive work to remove incorrect claims, and therefore it may, in that event, be best to start afresh. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deziree Ramirez[edit]

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

Person Deziree Ramirez is a hoax and does not exist. Person(s) is also an impostor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothinglastsforever (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every sourced link on this page concerning Deziree Ramirez is using the pictures of european model NSFW Francesca Felucci. 14:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User has created a fake IMDB page for added notability.

Deziree Ramirez never appeared in playboy. Searchable database here:

Links for proof that Deziree Ramirez does not exist [ALL NSFW] and is impersonating Francesca Felucci:

Creator of this article Texasknowsbest and their history is associated with this page alone and subsquent related and created links to this page.

Furthermore the Real Housewives of Dallas (another deletion possiblity) is not in production according to Bravo and they've never heard of Deziree Ramirez http://www.gossipcop.com/real-housewives-of-dallas-cast-deziree-ramirez/ http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2012/03/andy-cohen-real-housewives-of-dallas-is-not-happening.html Nothinglastsforever (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Deziree Ramirez is a hoax, she is an exceptionally elaborate hoax with XXL magazine and The Dallas Morning News getting taken in. The references in the article are mostly low quality, but they check out. I'm not convinced this person is notable, but I'm also not convinced the article is an outright hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree! It is an incredibly elaborate hoax to create a person and use said person to give credence to the existence of a purported; upcoming reality-show. However you have not acknowledged that in the XXL Magazine article Deziree Ramirez is using pictures of Francesca Felucci. There is also this tweet from the head of Bravo addressing the matter of whether the series would be made: https://twitter.com/BravoAndy/status/180307275909570561. I've also stated this person has absolutely no recorded evidence for ever appearing in playboy. It doesn't exist — because he/she's using another model's photos and identity. Will you be convinced by these doctored photos posted to Deziree's mobypicture twitter account? Moby 1 Moby 2 Moby 3 They are obvious forgeries and if you attempt to find them via a google reverse image search; you'll find the original, undoctored image of Francesca Felucci HERE which matches Moby 1. Here's another original HERE which matches Moby 2 & Moby 3. He/She also tried to watermark Francesca's photos with the Maxim (magazine) logo HERE. Nothinglastsforever (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP-nuke into a glowing glassy crater and then pave over just to be on the safe side. There is too much evidence for a faked identity to give this any benefit of the doubt. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I love a mystery and this was fun but now I have to cut Ms. Ramirez loose. This is just media jamming: for fun or profit, who knows? Doesn't matter: it should be deleted before it gets mirrored on a hundred sites. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shin Suk-ja. There is no inherent notability of either daughter and from all the English sources listed (with the exclusion of the UN resolution) the notability does appear to rest with Shin Suk-ja. However, if someone can reference reliable Korean sources that indeed address either daughter as being independently notable then I have no prejudice to the articles being recreated. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hae-won[edit]

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

Suggest redirecting to Shin Suk-ja. Hae-won is only notable for being the daughter of Shin, so there is nothing further being explained here that isn't already mentioned at Shin's article. Your Lord and Master (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you think it should be redirected, why nominate the article for deletion? Be bold and redirect it. Braincricket (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I should have looked at the page history first. Braincricket (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (and expand). Do you know any current North Korean political prisoner more famous than Oh Hae-won and Oh Kyu-won, assuming Shin Suk-ja is dead as the North Korean government claims? To my knowledge they are the only foreign children ever deported to a North Korean concentration camp and therefore the perfect example of arbitrary detention. Amnesty International campaigns, United Nations resolutions and many other documents mention all three women, Shin Sook-ja, Oh Hae-won and Oh Kyu-won by name. Shin Sook-ja certainly is mentioned first and most often, as she was the most famous of the three. But after her alleged death it can be assumed that human rights organizations will focus on the Oh sisters. Still I’m optimistic, that in case human rights organizations increase efforts, some day in future the Oh sisters will be released and their complete individual biographies can be provided in detail. The pages are quite new and I’m still in the process of expanding them. The Oh Hae-won article is already expanded partly. -- Gamnamu (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but with no prejudice against recreation in the future. I might deal with the non-AFD type stuff first - the article is obviously a "work-in-progress" which is fine, but I question whether this is something that perhaps could have been better done in a user's sandbox or in a userfied space generally. There are sub-headings in the article with no content and no sources immediately available (from what I can see) to expand those sections in any meaningful sense. Beyond that, I would strongly suggest that all users view this in terms of a discussion about an article's compliance with guidelines, rather than the attempted deletion of article for a subject many people are (legitimately) passionate about.

In terms of WP:N, the article seems (to me) like it suffers from a combination of WP:BLP1E and a lack of sources to verify that the subject is individually notable. I would argue that the event itself is notable (if we could agree on a generally NPOV title and general scope - suggestion; Political imprisonment of the Oh family) given it has been covered in multiple sources including those above. I would also argue that if such an article existed, it could have this article (and that of the subject's sister) merged into it. I'm just not sure that articles related to the specific individuals involved are justified by the sources available. I disagree with the assertion that the daughter gains more notability (to the extent that an article is justified on this basis) as a result of the mother's death. It has been generally established (as far as I can tell) that children do not inherit notability from their notable parents. I can only imagine that sentiment would extend to any assertion that notability might being inherited from a parent's (even notable) death. Assuming what international groups might or might not subsequently focus on is a bit WP:CRYSTAL. I'm also not particularly partial to the argument that they are the "most famous political prisoners in North Korea" and are thus notable (by what measure, anyway). On balance, I can't see any good reasons (based on policy) for the article(s) to be kept but I would be happy to see the creation of an event-based article into which they can be merged, or the recreation of both if/when more sources become available. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And redirect. Oh may later attain independent notability, but I'm unpersuaded that she does yet. I'm very familiar with the Shin article, having done a major rewrite of it this year. There's very little detail here beyond what's in the Shin article already, and the additional information is mostly sourced to groups like "Free the NK Gulag (NGO)", which I'm not sure meet the test for reliable sources. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shin Suk-ja. There is no inherent notability of either daughter and from all the English sources listed (with the exclusion of the UN resolution) the notability does appear to rest with Shin Suk-ja. However, if someone can reference reliable Korean sources that indeed address either daughter as being independently notable then I have no prejudice to the articles being recreated. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Kyu-won[edit]

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

Suggest redirecting to Shin Suk-ja. Kyu-won is only notable for being the daughter of Shin, so there is nothing further being explained here that isn't already mentioned at Shin's article. Your Lord and Master (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (and expand). Do you know any current North Korean political prisoner more famous than Oh Hae-won and Oh Kyu-won, assuming Shin Suk-ja is dead as the North Korean government claims? To my knowledge they are the only foreign children ever deported to a North Korean concentration camp and therefore the perfect example of arbitrary detention. Amnesty International campaigns, United Nations resolutions and many other documents mention all three women, Shin Sook-ja, Oh Hae-won and Oh Kyu-won by name. Shin Sook-ja certainly is mentioned first and most often, as she was the most famous of the three. But after her alleged death it can be assumed that human rights organizations will focus on the Oh sisters. Still I’m optimistic, that in case human rights organizations increase efforts, some day in future the Oh sisters will be released and their complete individual biography can be provided in detail. The pages are quite new and I’m still in the process of expanding them. The Oh Hae-won article is already expanded partly. -- Gamnamu (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but with reference to my comments HERE. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And redirect. No evidence of notability independent from her family, whose situation is covered in detail in the articles Shin Suk-ja and Oh Kil-nam. Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diocese of Stockholm (Church of Sweden). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sollentuna Kontrakt[edit]

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

Unsourced affair without sources or proof of notability. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner _talk 00:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a group of parishes. Dioceses are generally held to be notable, but sub-divisions of dioceses are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKE, WP:Vote. Cite a policy that warrants deletion. ChemTerm (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I stated in the nomination: it fails WP:GNG The Banner _talk 00:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to misunderstand the AfD procedure. We state our opinions here. Opinions do not have to be backed up by policies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! Ignore all rules! Use common sense! It is indeed a discussion as to whether it meets notability guidelines. However, those guidelines are not set in stone and are therefore open to discussion and opinion. A policy or guideline does not have to be quoted for an opinion to be valid. This is a common misconception of those who misunderstand the process. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        But that is the problem: you don't Ignore all rules! ChemTerm (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diocese of Stockholm (Church of Sweden), where much the same content appears. This is part of the State Church, not some minor denomination, but I do not think that in UK we have articles on individual rural deaneries, which seem to be similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Peterkingiron. Unlike the parishes (socknar of course, not församlingar), these are purely ecclesiastical divisions of little broader significance. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Minor ecclesiastical subdivion of Swedish state church lacks any inherent notability, and there is no evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Any significant material is already on the article on the diocese. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bromma Parish[edit]

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

One-liner without sources and no proof of notability The Banner _talk 00:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not WP:ILIKE. Cite a policy that warrants deletion of this historic entity. ChemTerm (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V, WP:GNG The Banner _talk 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a parish. Parishes are not generally notable. Individual churches within them may be notable as historic buildings, but not the parish as an organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKE. Cite a policy that warrants deletion of this historic entity. And especially tell: Why Swedish parishes are not allowed to have their own article in Wikipedia, whilst many others are? ChemTerm (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps those other parishes can proof their notability. It might be a good idea to visit Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The Banner _talk 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are notable. I noticed them several times. Others did too. If you can't maybe do something else. There is no requirement in WP policies that says: The topics must have been noticed be The Banner. ChemTerm (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some users with absolute disrespect for Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it#Deletion_discussions. ChemTerm (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be you who comes with the "I don't like it arguments". I have only nominated articles from your hand because they had no or otherwise a doubtful claim to notability. The Banner _talk 00:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in a form. There are two kinds of parishes in Sweden: socknar and församlingar. The former are small units of local administration, similar to U.S. townships; the latter are the ecclesiastical sort. The article should describe the administrative parish. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I presume that the parish is a subdivision of the municpality. This was a local administrative unit. There is no reason why we should not have articles on them, but typically in England we have an article on a village or locality, which may happen to be similar in extent to a civil parish, rather than directly on the parish. In other words, this article is not just about a church. The article on Bromma says that it is "primarily made up of the parish with the same name, and the parish of Västerled. A possible alternative might be to redirect to Bromma. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not an administrative sub-division. It's an ecclesiastical parish - merely the area served by a church or set of churches with no civil administrative functions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not anymore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is an article on an ecclesiastical parish, not a civil division as in Louisiana. We have consistently decided that parishes and congregations are not inherently notable, and there's no other claim to fame given. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is (now) about a geographical division, the historic civil parish of Bromma. --Hegvald (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had this been an article about a similar American subject then we wouldnt have this discussion right now. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but much more USA subjects are supposed to be notable than non-USA subjects. The Banner _talk 22:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I'm still not 100% convinced that this is notable, I can't let this statement stand without comment. No country's subjects are inherently more notable than another's. However, to BabbaQ, I would say rubbish. When created this article was about an ecclesiastical parish. Not only have we previously had AfD discussions about the notability of ecclesiastical parishes in the United States, but we have deleted articles about them (although there are certainly many more that should be deleted). The problem seems to be that some editors, mostly from non-English-speaking countries, are confusing parishes which are civil administrative units (e.g. in England and Louisiana) with parishes that are merely small ecclesiastical sub-divisions and have no civil administrative function. The former can be notable and are often kept, the latter, generally, are not. When created (and when some editors said "delete" on this AfD) this article appeared to be about the current ecclesiastical parish. It has now apparently been expanded into an article about the historical administrative parish. Note however that we do not have articles on English civil parishes, as these are considered too small, and these seem to be a similar size to the Swedish parishes. We do have articles on the villages after which English parishes are named, but we also have articles on the villages after which Swedish parishes are named (e.g. Bromma itself), so this is an identical situation. Parishes in Louisiana are the equivalent of counties and are thus much larger units. All these differences in terminology seem to be creating a little confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true: Category:Civil parishes in England by county contains a fair number of articles on distinct civil parishes (Hatfield, East Riding of Yorkshire, Aighton, Bailey and Chaigley, and Burgh and Tuttington, to name a few). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Only applies in the very rare cases of a parish that does not have the same name as a village or town within it. Is that the case here? No, since we do have an article on Bromma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, have you actually read that article? It's about the modern borough of Stockholm, not any village or town. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I'm aware of that. Village, town, borough. They're all settlements. Stop splitting hairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still not convinced If I follow the hierarchy properly, a Swedish administrative parish is a very small subunit, about on the level of an American city neighborhood or even precinct. I can see some slight possibility of notability for the parent hundred, but I'm not convinced that such a small unit merits an article. Mangoe (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer to townships, on which we have plenty of articles. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pr. Hegvald and L. von Richthofen. Iselilja (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too small of an admistrative area to qualify for automatic inclusion. Like Mangoe said, this is a lot like an American city ward or neighborhood. Lothar von Richthofen is incorrect in comparing this to an American Township, which has it's own government and by-laws. No evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so fails to meet any of our notability guidelines. Not notable as an ecclesiastical parish, for that matter, anyway. The anti-Swedish, pro-American angle is simply a strawman argument. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKE - Your edit is disruptive. Cite a policy that mentions the size of a geographic object as criterion for inclusion. ChemTerm (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not accuse another editor of disruptive behaviour for expressing an opinion which they are perfectly entitled to express. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The case of this parish and Sollentuna parish is complicated by the fact that Stockholm has now more or less engulfed them. Fact of the matter is, these parishes were for centuries quite distinct from the city, and so cannot be reasonably called a "neighbourhood" or "city ward". Socknar were distinct units of a number towns and/or villages, with hybrid civil-ecclesiastical administrative functions. That the administration was of a different nature than American government is to be expected, as Sweden has a different legal/governmental history than America—that doesn't mean that there was no local governing function. The historical socknar retain importance to this very day in Swedish linguistic research, toponymy, local/regional history, and archaeology. And somehow I don't think that "city ward" or "neighbourhood" is an adequate descriptor for e.g. sv:Jokkmokks socken (now there's a name for you). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Speedy Closure as Keep, as nominator Due to the work of Mr. Von Richthofen there is now a clear article about the historical civil parish. As a geographic entity that is already worth keeping. But he has also made a properly sourced article, good enough to convince me of its notability. The Banner _talk 19:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anger and optimism[edit]

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

This was tagged for proposed deletion by Blanchardb with the following rationale. "Stub presenting the findings of one study as absolute truth. ("Research shows..." without specifying what kind of research)." I agree with that assessment and I also feel that there's little evidence that this is an encyclopedic topic to begin with. On the talk page, one user has explained that this page will be updated weekly as part of a course but if the topic is not a valid one for an article, then this class project is just using Wikipedia as a free web host and collaboration platform. If kept, this should at the very least be moved into user space until it has developed. Pichpich (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but let the creator have the text as it existed at the time of deletion. Wikipedia is no place to post schoolwork. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even a topic. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seemingly a fragment of an essay. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY AutomaticStrikeout 23:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have been created in good faith, but the current article reads like a short essay. It can be userfied if the author still wants it.--xanchester (t) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Orange County Public Schools. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale Elementary School (Florida)[edit]

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

No claims of notability, awards or distinctions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Orange County Public Schools, as is standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Orange County Public Schools; too few sources and not enough evidence of notability to qualify for a separate article. dci | TALK 02:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to applicable school district per long-standing consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge North8000 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{Wikipedia_Talk:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton's My New BFF (Season 1)