Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 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 the consensus is to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Mary[edit]

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

Well-meaning docudrama, but no evidence offered of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Crown Productions. JohnInDC (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Enough evidence of notability has been provided including third party references, including newspaper articles and review of the documentary. The documentary is educational and informative. It has met the notability criterion of Wikipedia and has more than enough sources to prove that. Marcelrios (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - Posts by sockpuppet of blocked user [1] struck out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I currently dont see any evidence of this in the article. the http://www.nlfdc.ca/usr/pdf/NFDC2005.pdf "review" is by an organization that financially sponsored the film and so is not independent. The http://www.telefilm.ca/en/telefilm/telefilm/about-telefilm "Telefilm has made stimulating demand for Canadian screen-based content one of the top priorities of its corporate plan." not exactly a neutral reliable source. (and besides you cut and paste violate Wikipedia's copyright) the http://www.rn-ds-partnership.com/reconstruction/beothuk.html were the people who made the models for the films, also not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the same opinion. My analysis of the sources cited:

(1) canmedia.com [2] A catalogue entry from a company distributing the film: not independent.

(2) nlfdc.ca [3] A document from the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation. Again, not independent, if I understand correctly: the NLFDC is actively involved in promoting the films listed. In any case only mentions Stealing Mary briefly, as one of many projects.

(3) rn-ds-partnership.com [4] website for a business involved with the film - not independent, and does nothing to establish notability anyway.

(4) telefilm.ca [5] a catalogue entry.

(5) YouTube [6] An upload advertising the film for sale - not remotely independent.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telefilm Canada is a Federal Cultural Agency and the mention in their catalog is proof enough that the Documentary meets the notability criterion. There are thousands of other well referenced articles of Canadian Films that use Telefilms as REFERENCE. So your argument stands very little chance of survival. Telefilms Canada has always been a reliable source.Cut and copy-paste ? Are you kidding ? Marcelrios (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) ~~::::(3) rn-ds-partnership.com [7] Busienss involved ? How do prove that ? Marcelrios (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Because they say so: "Reconstruction of the skull of one of the last of the Beothuk Indians from Newfoundland in Canada, made in 2005 for the television program "Stealing Mary" for Windup Films." AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in a catalog does not demonstrate notability. It demonstrates that the film exists. Nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:: The catalog is not the only reference there. There are plenty of other sources that qualify and makes the Documentary worthy of being on Wikipedia. Placing a tag is easy. The article may require a cleanup or more secondary references. But the primary sources suggest that the article is strong enough, informative and educational. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you have to be told that primary sources cannot establish notability? As for your 'plenty of other sources', provide them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were worried about time, after it was redirected you should have drafted an article with the sources in your user sandbox and THEN restored it. You would have had all the time in the world to actually show us that it is in fact notable and covered by third party sources. (And you should stop spending your time now edtiwarring to reinsert the copyright plot description)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched for the necessary third-party in-depth coverage necessary to establish notability, and have found no real evidence for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:: What about the primary sources. Does that not meet the notability criteria as well ? Are you Canadians or part of Canadian Film Task Force ? I doubt that. The Film is a high budget docu-drama. Deletion of this article would be quite shocking. I think this is a biased point of view. If this article is deleted then many more articles will have to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelrios (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

What part of "No, primary sources do not establish notability" do you not understand? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::The RedPenOfDoom do you not understand that there are references all over the world wide web and on Google. What surprises me is that after two years a bunch of editors decide to delete this well referenced article. Why was it not deleted when it was created. I think there is a biased view. It meets the general notability criteria. We need an expert from the Canadian Film task force and not editors that are only good at placing delete templates. Marcelrios (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what i understand and what you apparently do not understand is that claims of "there are sources all over the web" is not one of the criteria for having a stand alone article. The criteria are that specific reliable third party sources with significant content about the subject actually be provided. And you have only provided primary sources or insignificant one line mentions, or a catalog entry that says nothing about the subject other than it exists. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that the only sources out there are either primary, junk, or cannot be used to show notability in any context. There are primary sources, but no amount of primary sources can show that a film passes notability guidelines. What we would need would be coverage in reliable sources such as a news article commenting about the film, a movie review by a reliable source that isn't involved with the film in any context, or mention in a book published through a reputable publisher. That just isn't out there and while the film did receive some funding from notable enough companies, that doesn't give notability as notability is not inherited. As far as saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and would merit deletion if this goes through, then odds are that they would merit deletion even if a dozen RS were found that proved notability. It would be a different story if we were arguing this point over an article that had 3-4 RS that passed Wikipedia's guidelines, but in this instance we're not and we can't keep an article that doesn't have sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Lack of coverage from reliable third party sources. -SFK2 (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought of starting this AfD last night for the reasons already given: lack of coverage in secondary sources. The film itself seems interesting and, as the nominator says, well-meaning. But that does not make it notable. There is also a strong conflict of interest from the creator (aka the sock puppet whose comments above were stricken) - see this RSN discussion about links to the website for the company that does SEO for these film makers. --bonadea contributions talk 08:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resorting to socks is the last refuge of a lost argument and wastes everybody's time. See also discussion at WP:EAR#Stealing Mary. Spinning Spark 09:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability 78.105.23.161 (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The best reliable source that could be found is just a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source I could find was IMDB [8] which, as we know, is user generated and not a good indicator of notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreline Trail[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources show any notability for what is a locally designated (and poorly signed) tourist route. A quick search online shows no hits related to this roadway; more hits come up for "Shoreline Drive", a local street in Muskegon that is part of BUS US 31, than for the actual "Shoreline Trail". Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Rs chen 7754 22:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any sources for it. It seems completely non-notable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violet LeVoit[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Found no reliable sources. There are 7 sources currently in the article, but they are either unreliable or are not about the subject. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator's conclusion; a search for news or reviews of this author's work did not turn up anything useful for me. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that there just isn't anything out there to show that she's notable. Her work sounds fun and I wish I could vote otherwise, but she just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Graveyard of Death[edit]

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

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 22:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:NF. Was able to find it reviewed at "Cranked on Cinema", but such is not acceptable as RS. As the first of a Jonathan Ashe purported trilogy, it might become notable at a later time. Maybe not. We can allow undeletion if it ever does. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Ferox[edit]

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

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 22:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was about to say that this could be speedied under G4, but this does have some sources here that weren't present last time. The majority of them are unreliable as they're merchant, primary, or reprints of press releases, but they're still there. I just can't find anything to show that this film passes notability guidelines or got any significant amount of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NF. If we ever have an article on filmmaker Jonathon Ash, it might be mentioned therein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychedelic album covers[edit]

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

Arbitrary and obscure list which doesn't fit into any preexisting structure of Category:Lists of album covers by art movement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Significant examples can be noted in psychedelic art. Note also that this is conflating album covers that feature psychedelic art with album covers of albums that feature psychedelic music. It's hard to get more psychedelic than the cover art for Disraeli Gears; the cover photo for Surrealistic Pillow, however, is quite unpsychedelic regardless of the band's psychedelic music. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with Postdlf here. The cover of The 5000 Spirits or the Layers of the Onion (which is not listed in the article) is an example of psychedelic art; that of I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-to-Die (which is listed) is not—it's just a photo of guys in funny costumes. If this is supposed to a list of covers related to psychedelic music, it seems redundant to such lists as List of psychedelic rock artists. If it's actually supposed to be a list of album covers featuring psychedelic art, it's probably too subjective and unsourceable to stand. Deor (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis School[edit]

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

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this private primary school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not complying with WP:ORG. I have carried out a search for sources and found insufficient to stand up notability. Finally, I have not been able to find a suitable redirect target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Curtis is a well-known private school. An unusual history: founded with a heavy orientation toward physical education [9], the founder committed suicide in 1932 [10], the school went on and became an academic institution later in the 1930s, and GNews has lots of (paywalled) coverage from those early decades [11]. Lots of celebrity kids means lots of mentions; for example, many gossipy reports about the adventures of Posh and Becks in L.A. (examples: [12][13][14][15]). I'm ambivalent about whether any of this adds up to notability in the Wikipedia sense, but it should not go unmentioned during this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add re redirect: If redirect is the answer, a suitable redirect target would be Bel Air, Los Angeles#Private, or possibly Sepulveda Pass. (Curtis is in the same basic location as Berkeley Hall, The Mirman School, The Westland School, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephen S. Wise Temple. The consensus is that this does not merit a stand-alone article, so a merge with the Temple would be the agreed best solution PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen S. Wise Temple Elementary School[edit]

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

Elementary school. Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bel Air, Los Angeles#Schools. I have not found the sources needed to meet WP:ORG but per WP:BEFORE this seems a sensible redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this case, perhaps the more natural merge/redirect target would be Stephen S. Wise Temple, where the elementary school is already mentioned. It could be argued that this school is notable as an early and large example of a Jewish day school in the Reform Judaism movement (mentioned, for example, in this 1989 article about the Temple [16] and in books like this one [17]), but even if so, given the skimpy current state of the article, I think a merge/redirect would be fine. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. As the nominator, I agree to the merge/redirect. Solves the problem. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I considered this target but the school has now severed its ties with the temple so it is no longer a good target. Since it is now independent of the temple the locality, the normal target for private elementary schools, is the better target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Milken Community High School severed its ties with the Temple last year, but I'm not aware of any change in the status of the elementary school. The cited 2011 article says the Temple "will continue to house its elementary school on its site". The Temple website still includes references and links to the elementary school [18].--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. There are 42 references in the current page. It is not a stub article and satisfies WP:NSONGS. (Non-administrator closure). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do What U Want[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Has had no significant coverage in many reliable sources, and has yet to chart or even be officially released for that matter. STATic message me! 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be added to when more information is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDBiggestFan (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , or just redirect. Waste of time to delete articles that will just be recreated in the very near future. If there is not enough information at this time for an article, just redirect. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator reverted the redirect twice, so that is why it was taken to AfD. Not every Lady Gaga song deserves an article, and you gave no reason for keeping it. STATic message me! 19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Also, redirects do serve a purpose on Wikipedia. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not really apply, I am all in favor for redirects, I make them all the time, but when one user wants to be disruptive and continuously revert the redirect, then it has to go to AfD. I am not going to edit war over a non notable song. STATic message me! 20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now that the song has been released, a simple Google search returns numerous articles about the subject. WP:GNG. My vote is still to let the article expand. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Song has been released and is blowing up in iTunes Stores, and is therefore notable (or will be in a few days' time). Adabow (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Obviously seeing the commercial performance it is achieving, makes no sense to delete it when it will chart just two days later on Billboard. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's safe to say that this song is about to become notable enough to justify keeping this article, given that it now has significant coverage. I acknowledge that this was a good AfD when STATicVapor filed it and I acknowledge the work that Another Believer and IndianBio have put into the article to save it. Acalamari 17:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article may have been created too early (the initial redirect was perfectly fine; I'm talking about the subsequent expansion that merely duplicated content from the Artpop page), but turns out it was only by a couple of days. At this point, there is plenty of significant coverage to meet WP:NSONGS and warrant an independent article. Gong show 17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) It's going to chart anyway. So there's no point in deleting it. — ₳aron 17:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from The Tree House[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUMS. I'm not good at finding secondary coverage on music albums, but I didn't see anything except listings of it. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It won a Juno Award, which seems to be the Canadian equivalent of the Grammys. There's also a review from AllMusic, but the Juno Award would probably be enough to keep in this instance. In all fairness, there isn't a lot out there, probably due to the fact that this was originally a self-published album from the mid-90s. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to Martha Johnson. Certainly notable due to the Juno win, but unless it can be expanded a merge to the artist's article would probably be best. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think there just enough for a standalone article, based on winning a Juno. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. The consensus is that this is not independently notable, but the content should be merged PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maelstrom's Minions[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maelstrom (comics). Deletion is also acceptable. These minor characters are not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of criminal organizations in Marvel Comics. Not notable in real-world terms for an independent article but suitable as part of the group, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor (film)[edit]

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

Film has not yet entered production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 13:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film is already in production as "pre-production" and development, scouting for locations have all been settled. Meanwhile, the other author's source is still being considered to be filmed, so I suggest to leave it as it is. ZERO-MINUS-TENUser talk:ZeroMinusTen 07:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". "Pre-production" is not "production", it is what comes before production. More to the point, it is not prinicipal photography (as that is clearly part of "production"). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being somewhat TOO SOON. WIth Milla Jovovich and the rest of this high profile cast, there is no doubt that this will be quite notable in another 12-18 months. Until then there might be sourced mentions in the various articles of cast and director about their "upcoming" project, but with a predicted 2015 release date, it is simply premature. Allow undeletion or recreation when principal filming begins. If anyone wishes to have this userfied to them for work over the next 12 months out of mainspace, I would think it okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet - Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photographyDeathlibrarian (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James McTeigue. Not notable as of yet. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tải giả xả ắc quy[edit]

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

This article is clearly not in english, and should exist on another Wiki. Roborule (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's in Vietnamese and is about an electrical testing load bank device. A manufacturer's name is mentioned, but it doesn't look spammy. Hard to tell in machine translation from Vietnamese usually, but this comes out fairly clear for once. We've probably got an article on this sort of thing already. I'll put the Google version on the talk page here. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 because the original author blanked it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's editing it again... Peridon (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the author have any input on this discussion? Roborule (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It tells them so on the template. Sometimes they don't come at all, other times we can't get a word in sideways. Peridon (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original author is not the same editor who most recently edited the page. The original author was User:Nguyen.tien.sang, and the person who recently added to it was User:Nguyen.hoang.thao.my. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot for a moment there that Nguyen is the Vietnamese equivalent of Kim in Korean and Smith in English... Peridon (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles in English Wikipedia are required to be written in English. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RD Mower[edit]

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

Page created by its subject, "an American actor". Page has already been tagged for several concerns: unreferenced, use of external links outside guidelines, orphan, notability guideline for biographies, no links to other articles. Inline external links are all to Facebook, Youtube or vimeo clips. There is no reliably sourced detail. The referrals to film festivals are unexplained and, to be charitable, dubious. (I can find no mention of Mower or his films at Cannes for example.) This appears to be a self-promo article created by a wannabe notable. Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any references to these films in reliable sources. Whether they exist they are not notable and Mower is not a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per John..--Stemoc (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. There are some reviews of plays in Tucson where he is mentioned, but that's far from significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Unity of India[edit]

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

I previously placed a Prod on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this is a notable organisation." The Prod was removed without comment by the article creator, whose editing history has a focus on the organisation and its founder, whose biography is also at AfD. I see minimal evidence of this party having a tangible existence: there is a bare-bones Webs free site with no evidence of activity; Google turns up a Youtube official ad (13 views) and a Facebook page (251 likes). So I am bringing it to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the related AfD. Wizardman 15:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a vanity stunt, not a real party. And this has been deleted before, btw (but under a slightly different name). --Soman (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not a real party. Only search result is this Wiki page and a facebook page.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Social media tittle-tattle best ignored.- Zananiri (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Germany[edit]

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

This list is so far from completion that IMHO it conveys, by omission, more false information than it contributes, and should be therefore deleted. I'm referring e.g. to the article de:Endphasenverbrechen, which lists hundreds of massacres for 1944/1945 alone. Seelefant (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. But of course, we aren't bound to the same inclusion criteria as other language wikis, so that a German list has a lot more content may be helpful to know but doesn't dictate our choices here. This kind of list, in any event, is never "complete", but rather may be limited to entries that merit articles (as a complement to Category:Massacres in Germany) or to some other consensus-supported standard that sets some kind of meaningful threshold as far as what constitutes a "massacre". I think that all adds up to a keep. postdlf (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be a purely arbitrary list, and always will be without an agreed definition for inclusion. I do not see that being possible whilst maintaining a neutral point of view. --AJHingston (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lists of massacres by country is a standard article type on Wikipedia, since there is an article like this for most major countries in the world (89), missing Germany would be strange. Content issues can be worked out by consensus on the list talk page. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per green cardamoms reasoning. basic standard article on several wikipedias.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination says basically nothing but that the article needs improvement, shows even how it can be improved by comparing it to the German article, but instead of lifting a finger to actually improve it (or ask people to do it on some relevant Wikiproject) prefers to just erase it? Sorry, this isn't going to fly. What can be fixed by standard editing isn't gonna be deleted, per our deletion policy. Especially if we have a good example to follow to improve it (I'd do, but my German is basically non-existent).--cyclopia ^speak! 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have a lot of such articles for differnet countries. The present one is severely incomplete, but that is a reason to improve it, not delete it! Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a subject for a WP article, clearly meets WP:GNG given the number of articles on the same subject about other nations. If anything, the article needs considerable improvement as, strangely, only one pre-1945 massacre, going back to 782 is listed.- Zananiri (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and salt as this is word-for-word identical to the previous version deleted at AFD. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Jayne Gratton[edit]

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

Pure WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT of non notable celebrity wannabe Fiddle Faddle 10:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources are valid and credible for the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconovate (talk • contribs) 10:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Turell[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards of WP:GNG - not enough reliable sources to have an article about this person. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability here is tenuous at best, the article has had some problems with unsourced/irrelevant offensive material, and the subject requested deletion via OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no independent coverage that shows notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ~Hue Sat Lum 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Damned[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing to show that this film is notable, no references, and see WP:CRYSTAL. Mat ty.007 08:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this version is far worse than what was incubated before and borders on G11 speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Concerns of last AFD are addressed in that the film has finally been released and WP:GNG and WP:NF are soundly met for this film topic. Multiple available sources toward production, filming, and release were ridiculously easy to find. Anyone else ever read WP:NRVE? Topic notability is determined by sources being available,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] not by their use or not within an article. THAT and any sense or a promotional tone are issues best addressed through regular editing, not deletion. And nominator... a claim of WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable for a released film. And please, in the future use a little WP:BEFORE, okay? And by the way... the version from the first AFD is still in the incubator, and IT has sources. See: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Battle of the Damned. I encourage that it and its sources be returned to mainspace forthwith, with the edit histories of the two merged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~1 doesn't work~~ [now works, but content posted by any old online user], the rest are reviews from people who are described as "lounging lazily on his couch" (7), a "MrDisgusting" (6), blogs (5, 9, 10), and so on; these do not constitute "significant attention by the world at large" to me. Mat ty.007 08:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matty.007, thanks for revisiting. We do not expect "the world at large" to notice every film ever made, and DO accept information form genre sources already deemed suitable for offering information for genre films. You might consider investigating proffered sources a bit more deeply before sharing your personal opinion of them. I suggest a study WP:V, WP:NRVE, WP:RS and its sections WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:USEBYOTHERS, and WP:RSOPINION for starters... and you can always consider seeking input on sources over at WP:RSN for any you feel unsuitable. Those above were offered here to illustrate how easy they were to find. Yes, not all are the best, but of those offered above, many are actually widely accepted herein as quite suitable for genre film articles. We welcome information from established independent sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking such as IO9 (in this instance itself sourced to Fangoria), Screen Daily, JoBlo, Bloody Disgusting, and (likely) Influx Magazine. Further, we do not blithely declare automatic non-notability of a topic when sources are available, even if not used in the article. And by the way (you might have known had you checked), "Mr. Disgusting" is the online pseudonym of Brad Miska. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going into the sources in more depth, I admit that further investigation may have been a better procedure. But, as we know, I didn't; and whilst I agree with most of what you said, I too had a look for sources, and finding mainly blogs and independently published sources, along with a host of Youtube trailers; but I can see now that there is some useable content in there. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the sources in the incubated version more than anything has led me to change my mind, and Withdraw this nomination (sorry if I am meant to write this somewhere else). Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore incubated version per User:MichaelQSchmidt. This version of the article is poor but the film is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that this software is notable, with the given sources being judged as non-significant-coverage. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoiper[edit]

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

Non-notable software. I don't even see an indication of importance in the article. Fails WP:GNG with two articles found in a Google News search. Neither of which represent significant coverage. A Google News archive search provides several hits but none seem to be independent (are PR pieces) or don't constitute significant coverage.

The article has one reference which was written by a Toma Kashamov. Google searches seem to indicate that Toma has written several descriptions of the software which would indicate that he has an association with the subject meaning that the source isn't independent and can't be used to establish notability.

I PRODed the article to give the author time to establish notability but the author removed the PROD, stating, "Grant notability and remove PROD." I'm not sure how notability is "granted" but I don't feel that the user has established importance, let alone notability, which is why I created this AfD. WCS100 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What level of notability are you looking for? Zoiper is quite popular VoIP software that I use on daily basis, so I was quite surprised it is missing from the Comparison list (given it is more popular and active than much of the other entries there). I know that independent sources are to be used, but it is hard when it comes to a commercial product. Still I found an article in Techrunch revealing the importance of Zoiper for another fast-growing company. Another article published on Apple.com is also mentioning Zoiper. There are plenty of other reviews and articles over the web [31], [32], [33], etc. You can also see that it has hundreds of thousands of downloads in Google Play and App Store.

So, it is quite obvious that (1) Zoiper exists and (2) it is popular and important enough for lots of people and businesses. Hence, it deserves its mentioning in Wikipedia. Perhaps you would be able to help me pick the proper sources establishing the notability? Kouber (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a guideline for what will be included on Wikipedia called WP:NOTABILITY. It's a huge guideline that I won't just throw at you to read - the easiest way to establish "notability" is to show that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable and independent sources ("sources" so generally 2+). WP:NOTABILITY (WP:N) has many subsections for different subjects like music, books, artists, biographies, sports, etc. but nothing specifically for software which is why the General Notability Guideline or WP:GNG is applied. You might be able to argue that WP:ORG applies since the name of the organization is also the name of the software but I don't think there's anything to be gained by doing that.

You've provided several sources which is a great start. I'll go through them one-by-one.

The TechCrunch article only mentions Zoiper in passing which doesn't constitute "significant coverage". The Apple article also only mentions Zoiper in passing which doesn't constitute significant coverage. The VOIP Supply article has 15 words about Zoiper, along with several other VOIP products, which doesn't constitute significant coverage. The MGraves.com article is definitely significant coverage but I'm not sure that it can be used to establish notability per WP:NEWSBLOG. I'm not sure that the blog.easyofficephone.com article can be used to establish notability for the same reason (WP:NEWSBLOG). The AppAnnie.com link is just a store link and isn't a secondary news source.

If you have any more sources, that would be great. I'll look for more as well. The two blog articles are definitely significant coverage but I'm not sure that they can be used to establish notability. Rather than make that the point that's considered by others, I think if we find non-blog significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, that those sources are blogs will be a non-issue.

I'll take a look today. WCS100 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted a few more. Zoiper is mentioned in two books - The 3CX IP PBX Tutorial, and Asterisk: The Future of telephony (under its initial name - Idefisk), as well as in the official Asterisk quick start guide. Also in a Master degree thesis, a blog article, and another article that in my opinion qualifies for significant coverage. Kouber (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered Zoiper in one more book, a news article, (looks like a significant coverage), and yet another article with Zoiper in it. Many sites are also including Zoiper in their VoIP software comparison lists: [34], [35], [36], [37]. Kouber (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The http://asterisk.ru/ reference isn't significant coverage. It just a sentence that mentions it. The http://beqrious.com/ reference just mentions once that Zoiper is a VOIP service and doesn't look like anything close to significant coverage to me, either. It doesn't even have a publication date or author. A masters thesis seems like a bad place to look for notability since they're often inherently looking at subjects that aren't well known. The tutorials a guides aren't independent, in my opinion. A blog fundamentally can't be used to establish notability.

All of the rest of these are just mentions as well. I'm not opposed to accepting that all of these mentions may establish notability but given that they're all old mentions (most of them come around 2009), I don't think that those mentions will lead to significant coverage.

I'm at weak delete at this point. It seems like a service that was starting to gain traction, as far as media attention goes, then everything fell off. I don't see that changing to suggest that it will be notable, based on the plethora of mentions it has received. I'm rather indifferent at this point, though. WCS100 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the http://beqrious.com/ article is all about Zoiper and the QR button it introduced in order to solve "one of the most cumbersome things about using a VoIP service". It is a significant coverage, revealing one of its advantageous features, compared to other VoIP softphones. Kouber (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that beqrious.com is not a reliable source. It describes itself as a blog, has no author posted for the article, and has no clear editorial policy available on its site.Dialectric (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2013 (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) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The company is well established, offering a consistent development of a product over the last 8+ years. It's not a start-up, here today, gone tomorrow. It's also in an specialist industry segment in which there is not that many players, probably in this case, <20-30 organizations. The article is well written, and well presented. I think it easily satisfies the WP:GNG guidelines. scope_creep talk 16:42, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

What part of GNG does it satisfy? It seems like you're willing to grant notability based on your perception of the subject's notability. GNG is very clear - can you provide at least two instances of significant and independent coverage from reliable sources? WCS100 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think it's bad form to aggressively comment the people who are discussing the WP:AFD. Nominate and then wait for the outcome, however long it takes. The reason, I've posted a Strong Keep, is simple, I believe the article is notable and I wouldn't vote for it's inclusion otherwise. I believe that easily 30-50% of WP could be deleted tomorrow and not effect that standard or depth of knowledge it WP contains. But it's a modern encyclopedia, not some 20th century Encyclopædia Britannica version. That 30-50% of superficial nonsense, that could be deleted now, is what makes the majority of under 30's come to this site, as is this article. And it's needed, as is this nominated article. I think the problem with WP:GNG is they were written for an age that no longer exists. Sure they are guidelines, but action ignores a whole raft of humanities actions, by the nature, can't exist in WP, because the guidelines are too narrow in scope. They have never been tested in a purely logical manner to determine if they cover the totality of man's knowledge. Onto this article. I'm a software engineer, and I can tell the software industry are creating new, elegant software types, modes of thought and action, which never existed before. This is one of them. Being an inclusionist by nature, you'd normally think I would automatically vote for this article. If it was a start-up, yip. But this company is working on a product type, which didn't exist until 2005-2006. It's an established company. And that is clearly notable. scope_creep talk 18:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Aggressively comment? WP:AFD very clearly states that AFDs are, "where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted". It doesn't say, "where Wikipedias state their case and wait for the outcome." It's a discussion, not closing arguments. Given the amount of time that you've participated at this project, I'm rather alarmed that you'd rather participants just state their opinion and wait for it to be judged. I would appreciate it if, in the future, you wouldn't comment on me as a participant (e.g. my "aggressive comment") and would focus on the discussion. Otherwise, this would be considered a personal attack per WP:NPA. I would let this slide if you hadn't been around as long as you have been.

As for your argument that "easily 30-50% of WP could be deleted tomorrow", etc., please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. That argument has been extensively covered and refuted to the point that it's been marked as an argument to avoid in AfDs.

I won't get into a deltionism/inclusionist argument here. Frankly, I think that's irresponsible. I stand by my original question. There are clear inclusion guidelines given in WP:N. You stated that it clear satisfies WP:GNG but have failed to provide a single reference to support your argument. If you want to contribute to this conversation in a positive manner, just provide some references. If/when you do, I'll be the first to agree with you that the subject satisfies WP:GNG. If it's "clearly notable", please cite the relevant part of WP:N that the subject satisfies and back up your opinion with evidence and not hollow opinions. WCS100 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the aggressive commenting, dude. There is really no need for it. It's bad form for the article WP:AFD nominator to comment on the discussion process. It's really against the spirit and letter of WP to hassle commentators in this manner. You've made your case. Let it lie, until a decision is made. It's the standard process used in Roman Common law as used in the last 20 centuries. As for the guidelines, in search of some sentence which defines exactly a match for my argument. You won't find it. Guidelines are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'a general rule, principle, or piece of advice'. The WP:GNG are merely guidelines to be interpreted. I'm not going to comment on this further. scope_creep talk 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

WCS100 (talk), forget that comment I made about not commenting on the AFD process. Apparently it is allowed, and very common. scope_creep talk 14:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted. WCS100 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm not, you believe that using WP:IAR is a good argument for this case. I see your point and think it holds water but I simply disagree that this is a case where it should be used. WCS100 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable software. as discussed above, all sources found thusfar for this article do not meet the threshold of significant coverage in a reliable source, as they are developer's sites, blogs, or incidental mentions. Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that this meets the notability criteria for inclusion. It is also the consensus that the lack of reliable sources precludes merging this with any other article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giniwasekao[edit]

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

This article lacks merit in accordance to Wikipedia policies. It lacks notability. I don't believe it adds any value to Wikipedia and by extension to its readers. It is not neutral and the main agenda is self glorification of an ethnic term and thus the tribe. Quinette21 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta1981Rasta (talk) You have not explained on what basis you proclaim that the article lacks merit, notability and adds no value. The fact that all the media houses in Kenya have covered this in one way or another should suggest that it indeed is of interest t oKenyan football lovers and Kenyans in general. It is not a requirement that articles be neutral. This article is simply an explanation of the phenomenon of Giniwasekao, which has gained popularity in Kenyan football circles lately. As explained in the article, usage of the word is not limited to Gor Mahia fans, neither is it limited to members of the Luo community. —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete:First off, remember to sign your comment using ~~~~. Secondly, Wikipedia is not A NEWS website. It is a requirement by Wikipedia that all articles always remain neutral. In fact Wikipedia would not be what it is today if it was not a neutral source of information. Just so you know, Neutrality is one of the 5 Wikipedia pillars.Wikipedia is also not A DICTIONARY or a slang, jargon or usage guide like what is depicted in this article. Quinette21 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Please note that the neutrality requirement is on point of view, not in content. It is not a requirement that the article try to appear neurtal by incorporating material that is of no relation to it.[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gor Mahia F.C., no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 09:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) The independent notability is due to the fact that the word is used by diverse other entities than Gor Mahia FC. Merging it with the Gor Mahia page would limit its usage to Gor Mahia related affairs, while the spirit of the word is such that it is applicable in any situation where victory is imminent.[reply]

delete - no indication of notability, pure fan cruft. Definitely against merging without reliable sources throughout this entirely unreferenced article. Fenix down (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments above on notability of this article. There are a number of references embedded in the article, take time and read them.Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If this articles qualifies for deletion, then the articles below ought to be deleted too based on your reasoning: Aloha, As-salamu_alaykum Schadenfreude, etc. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Masta, will you please as requested sign your posts at the end not the beginning as requested. Secondly, the sources you provide have little if anything to do with the chant. The second and third ones do not mention it at all and the first one only mentions it in the first sentence and could never be described as a source that discusses this "phenomenon" in any detail. Please provide additional reliable sources that should significant in-depth, non-routine coverage. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a requirement that all the sources cited discuss the article in question in depth. It is not even a requirement that all sources cited mention the name of article. These citations are done in order to support the article, not to substitute it. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Masta, Info on Wikipedia is as good as the sources cited. When you go ahead to state that:
It is not even a requirement that all sources cited mention the name of article
— Masta1981Rasta
you are cementing the fact that the article lacks 3rd party coverage from reliable sources. Wikipedia does not act as the first place a topic is written about. It must have sufficient coverage by reliable sources. Quinette21 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quinette, who says wikipedia is the first place giniwasekao was written? That word/phrase has been in existence since time imemmorial, it is just that it has lately acquired fame due to Gor Mahia fans. I have explained that many times already. The sources cited do not have to mention the name of the article, they just need to provide support for the content of the article, which these cited sources do. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Masta Rasta — your comment makes no sense, the article is about Giniwaseko, therfore the sources must support that phrase and its notability. Currently the sources do not. Fenix down (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix Down, if you cannot see the sense in my statement, then it is probably due to your handicap in perceiving sense. The sources do support the article, if in your opinion, they do not, then it is not for me to convince you. Do a little more reading for yourself. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the personal attack. To reiterate, the first source mentions the word Giniwasekao at the start of the article, but it is not an article on the use of the word or its prominence. The second two sources do not discuss Giniwasekao at all. Therefore there is nothing really in the article to explain why Giniwasekao is a notable word / phrase. That is why it is at AfD, the sources do have to establish the notability of the article subject. They do not. Five of the six paragraphs are completely unreferenced and all but one of the variations are completely unsourced as well. Not sure what you are finding so difficult to understand about this. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these three uncontested entries I earlier mentioned: Aloha, As-salamu_alaykum and Schadenfreude. Are all the paragraphs in them referenced? Maybe you ought to suggest they be deleted too? It is your opinion that the article is not notable, no need to railroad your opinion down our collective throat. You have made your case, however feeble. Now wait for the decision on deletion to be made. You are now sounding like a busybody. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Masta1981Rasta, It is encouraged that we don't abuse people and it is not right for stuff to get personal on Wikipedia.I believe you would not use the words you used against other authors if you met them in person or in an F2F meeting. You are just taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet which is a wrong thing. You have given a case of three articles that should also be deleted which I believe is guided by your anger. Revenge doesn't work here since Wikipedia is not a battlefield.In fact all the three articles you have proposed for deletion as well are well cited from reliable sources. If you feel they should be deleted on the grounds that they violate Wikipedia policy then go ahead and propose them for deletion. Once again remember the signature ~~~~ comes after your comment. I think this discussion should come to a close. Quinette21 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's close this discussion and await the decision on whether the article ought to be deleted or not. Your desire that this article be deleted is motivated by matters unrelated to the purity of wikipedia. I might appear rude with my words, but i am just reacting to the initial rudeness and condescension exhibited by you and Fenix. We ought to treat each other with utmost courtesy on this forum even if we do not agree with each other. Masta1981Rasta (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masta, do you even read the comments? You have been requested time and again to put the signature at the end of your comments.It is not anyone's desire to delete any article. It is only that we would like to only accommodate encyclopedic content here and not everything. Quinette21 (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As there would appear to be sources to indicate notability, the consensus would appear to be veering towards keep, even by those who had left a delete comment. If no improvement is made in a reasonable time, then a second AfD could be opened for this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latrelle[edit]

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

Singer/songwriter. The article is one big fluff piece without any reliable sources (and a second one existed at MzMunchie until just now). The text can be found all over the web, but I now assume it was written (and posted here?) by her representation.

I can find no reliable sources covering her at all
She seems to have released a single EP (itunes). Per the WP:NMUSIC guideline this is not considered sufficient indication of notability for a standalone article.

Amalthea 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what Candleabracadabra said, the article does not meet most of the criteria listed on WP:MUSBIO specially reliable sources. ///EuroCarGT 01:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No media coverage as Latrelle or MzMunchie. Can't find any reviews of her EP. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this article from VIBE, an allmusic bio, and Popular Music: An Annotated Index of American Popular Songs appears to credit her with co-writing a Grammy-nominated song, so I'm a bit mystified with all the comments stating that no coverage at all could be found. --Michig (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also found this from Edge Boston and here's a Billboard Dance Club Songs chart showing her at number 50. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per my comments above. The arguments that coverage doesn't exist have been shown to be groundless. --Michig (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, it seems my Google-fu was weak, sorry about that.
The article would need to be pretty much stubbed to get it verifiable, but a page in Vibe (magazine) is generally sufficient for me. Is a song on Dance Club Songs (Hot Dance Club Songs?) an acceptable "country's national music chart" as per WP:MUSICBIO criterion 2? Amalthea 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That chart would not be enough for me on its own, but others may disagree. It at least shows some level of success, albeit minor. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more discussion of Michig's sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2013 (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) 05:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could User:Amalthea, User:Candleabracadabra, User:EuroCarGT, and User:Colapeninsula comment on whether the links provided above convince them of the subject's notability and strike or reaffirm their !votes? Mark Arsten (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for someone to do something with the article. :) Yes, the sources identified above establish notability. No, I haven't changed my vote because the current article isn't written from those (or any) verifiable sources and should probably be deleted if it's not fixed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links above shows notability as she wrote songs for Destiny Child as what Candleabracadabra said above, I wouldn't change my !vote for now due to the current state of the article. ///EuroCarGT 15:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. I'm happy to improve the article if it's kept, but don't want to spend an hour of my time on something that's going to get deleted. If you feel that notability is there and that the article can be brought up to scratch, the right thing to do is keep it. --Michig (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article isn't cleaned up it should be deleted. It can always be moved to userspace if someone wants to work on it later. If it's deleted it can also be started fresh from the sources noted above. Promotional content that isn't verifiable isn't appropriate to include in Wikipedia and that's what the article consists of at present. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumble (disambiguation)[edit]

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

A dab page with one legitimate entry, the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one legitimate entry. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vibhijain. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Network (sociolinguistics)[edit]

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

Appears to be original research. reddogsix (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't original research, this is a project for a school course designed to explain social network theory in sociolinguistics. Please feel free to check the sources, or simply google the term and you'll find that it is well known in linguistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamzajaka (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clearly not original research. Among the sources it cites are academic publications by sociolinguists titled "Social Networks" (Milroy 2002) and "Network Analysis" (Wei 1996). Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a social network in sociolinguistics is well established and notable. Searching for "social network" linguistics nets 24K hits in GBooks and 29K hits in GScholar. The article had some essay-like parts at first, but is being actively improved. By now it is well referenced with inline citations and at first glance, most of the sources look reliable.. Removing synthesis, if present, is a matter of editing and is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article issues suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High-profile notable topic to which many reliable sources attest. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Grey (musician)[edit]

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

Musician lacking independent notability. Is a recent member of one notable band but lacks notability outside of them. His other bands are not notable, he has no noticable solo career. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Two of the four sources are press releases or similar. The remaining two are interviews, by quasi-professional bloggers in the industry. I'd almost keep this article, but I'd like to see some mainstream coverage of the guy first. If such coverage existed, the interview blog posts could be used to flesh out the article, but they aren't enough to independently meet the notability bar. !GNG and !WP:BAND == delete. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xiao (mythology). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hsigo[edit]

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

Per discussion at Talk:Hsigo; the non-existent subject of the article is the result of an OCR error and fails WP:GNG. Kayau (talk · contribs) 03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the talk page comments are correct, Hsigo is the result of Google Books faulty OCR and thus fails verifiability. We are only enhancing and promulgating error by keeping the article. Edison (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless how this word originated, there are at least two authentic usage examples on GBooks: Symbolic and Mythological Animals (1992) and Companion for the Apprentice Wizard (2006). It is also in Illustrated Guide to Mythical Creatures (2011), according to this review. According to the talk page comments, the word has been used as a character's name on two U.S. television shows, Andromedia (2001) and Flying Monkeys (2013). That's pretty slim for notability, but this is definitely not an OCR misprint. After all, no one was using GBook scans back in 1992, were they? KlingonHeaven (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The comments at the talkpage discussion are convincing that this is the result of an error. --Cold Season (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. From comments on the talk page, it appears that this is a misspelling of hsiao/xiao. So the lemma should direct to xiao (mythology). The Viking 04:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Sock
Well-archive or Keep this article is WAY to interesting to just ditch into cyberspace. Is there a well-archiving mechanism on Wikipedia? Dcattell (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I actually meant the talk page, not the actual article. But, don't they go together? Dcattell (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- We could always move the talk page into someone's userspace! or maybe move the article to BJAODN? (then again, it's an error, not a hoax.) Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I find interesting about the controversy around this article is that there are quite a few Internet references to "Hsigo", even as creatures in computer gaming: but they almost all refer back to the Wikipedia article, which seems to have existed erroneously since 1 January 2005. Almost like some kind of vicious circle. I just wonder, is this an isolated case, or will we see more of this kind of phenomenon in the future?
Redirect to Xiao (mythology). The Language Log article relies on a Wikipedia talk page as its primary source for concluding the term is false. Which is self-referential. So we have no reliable source on the debunking, unless we want to say it's reliable that Victor Mair agreed with a Wikipedia discussion, which seems dodgy with no other source. Furthermore, I'm not totally convinced by the OCR error argument, the oldest source for the mythological creature usage is from 1992 [38] and it's a scan which clearly shows the word, I don't believe image scans are error corrected on a per-letter basis, and a 1992 book could not be the result of a prior Google Books OCR scan (GB wasn't yet invented). However this source is not enough alone for a Keep since we really don't know what it says (snippet view) and the other sources mentioned by KlingonHeaven are not reliable for determining the existence of this creature. The talk page should be preserved recommend userify or copy to Talk:Xiao (mythology) for further discussion, I believe Keahapana is almost surely right about the error in transcription as the ultimate cause, but when, where and how that error originated still seems uncertain. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect good way to keep. (Do I get to vote twice!?) Also, "Xiao (mythology)" is a good article (lower case). I guess the other mythological xiao could go under "Shanxiao (mythology)", if anyone gets around to it. Dcattell (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's starting to look like "Hsigo" and both "Xiao"s should redirect to a disambiguation page.Dcattell (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications. Any RS on the Romanization of Chinese will confirm that "hsigo" is not a phonemically possible Chinese word. As discussed on Talk:Hsigo, Cooper might have miscopied from Borges (but doesn't list the source). While the amusing OCR error of "Hsigo" for Hsiao is widespread, it admittedly might not be related to the original mistake. As discussed on Talk:Xiao (mythology), another possibility might be to move Hsigo to something like Hsiao (fiction) and add the Borges reference there. It seems preferable to have one article about verifiable Chinese mythological creatures called xiao/hsiao and another about the unverified mistakes and misspellings. Keahapana (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cats (musical). The consensus is clearly that this should not be kept as a stand-alone article. Any useable material can be merged into the article about the musical itself, as per the suggestion by Peterkingiron PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CATS (Original London Cast Recording)[edit]

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

Article for album lacking independent notability. Note that this article is very specifically about a 1998 double cd release, not an early 80s album. Lack independent coverage in reliable sources, current sourcing is a shop and a listing. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Notability tag was removed without real improvement with a pointy revert [39]. Re-adding a spam link does not show notability. Shops are not reliable sources. A search found no better sources. (the credits seems to be a straight copy-paste from the copyrighted discogs source.) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like this was a recording of the 1981 cast and was released (or re-released) in 1990, 1998, and 2005. It looks like there might be some notability here, since it apparently won the 1982 Grammy Award for Best Cast Album. ([40]) I found mention of it behind a paywall in Google search here. This might just need to be cleaned up to refer to the entire range of releases and not just the re-release in 1998. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm having trouble finding non-primary sources for thsi since the Grammy page only shows that the Broadway cast won a Grammy in 1983. The official Grammy website shows that Dreamgirls won the Grammy for that year, although I do find some mentions of the recording getting the Grammy in semi-unreliable places such as this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source, this one from CNN, but given that this is the most reliable source I can find and they're quoting someone else... it makes me equally as suspicious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. If someone can find more coverage, then I'm willing to change my vote. The problem here is that there's so little out there that is verifiable about this particular recording. I'm 99% certain that this has been the same 1981 recording that has been re-mastered and re-packaged in various formats, but I can't guarantee that. If it is, then there is evidence of it charting in Austria at position 7 and remaining in the charts for several months. I'm also finding mention of it hitting platinum in the UK, but I can't verify that in any RS. At this point it might be better to just create a subsection in the main article for any and all cast recordings and merge the pertinent material there. It does merit a mention, but the problem is whether or not there's enough verified information to where it merits its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cats (musical). I note that that article deals with positions reached in album charts. That surely refers to an album, not the stage musical itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kunin[edit]

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

Does not meet Wiki's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added new sources, but more in Google Books. Pioneering nutritional psychiatrist with multiple book reviews in reliable sources, per WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per [41], [42], [43] (scroll down) and WP:AUTHOR criteria #3 per the sources added to the article by User:Green Cardamom. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:34, 12 October 2013 (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) 02:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Reasons[edit]

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

Autobio by non-notable comedian. Orange Mike | Talk 03:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have actually only seen him in the Movie, The Heat but he did impress me very much and though his "filmography" is well limited, I think he does fulfil the inclusion criteria, he is very famous (much more famous after the movie), had this article been nominated a year ago, I would have voted for deletion but I think we need to wait this out for another year, his page views say 18000 views in the last 3 months...a bit of copyediting (since it has been mainly written by him) and we are good to go...--Stemoc (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (there's enough citations in the article itself) shows that he passes the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:49, 17 October 2013 (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) 02:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable - coverage in reliable sources Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage out there, — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premetro[edit]

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

This older article first triggered my concern back in February. Its single reference is to a passing mention. That passing mention does not define the term. None of the several dozen rapid transit systems listed in the article has a reference to substantiate that a reliable source asserted the system was a "premetro" system. I am afraid the listing of those systems here has lapsed from WP:No original research. I am afraid that this term has seemed like a term that should exist. But if reliable authoritative sources don't use this term it doesn't merit an article here.

In the event someone who thinks the term merits an article does find instances where reliable authoritative sources use the term in a meaningful way, I strongly feel that no city should be listed here -- unless there is a reliable source that applies the term to that city's system.

Note: web searches will turn up lots of hits -- in Spanish. These are false positives because their is a homonym in Argentina. All the Spanish language hits are to that system -- unrelated to a possible English term. Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term certainly does exist and is used in a number of European countries (Belgium, which uses it officially for systems in Brussels and Antwerp, being one of the best examples), although not generally in English-speaking countries. It has, however, been adopted by a number of English-language writers on mass transit to refer to similar systems in countries that don't use the term as well as those that do. The article needs expanding, but I don't think it would be sensible in an encyclopaedia to delete it. It's most certainly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT to the assertion that Belgian authorities officially use the term "premetro" -- we have an article on one Belgian system, that was once called Charleroi Metro that was renamed, without explanation, to Charleroi Pre-metro. What do Belgian authorities call this system? They seem to call it "Métro léger de Charlesroi". Google translates this as "Light Rail Charlesroi". Was there some other Belgian system you want to suggest is officially called a "premetro" line? My google search for "Brussels Premetro" OR "Antwerp premetro" site:be got a few hits -- but none of them are "official" sites. Most of them are worthless aggregators. The pdf that looked like it might be a semi-official site cited the wikipedia as its authority. Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) - Note Official name is Métro de Charleroi. I moved it back to Charleroi Metro. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try this on the Brussels Metro's official website. The term is used several times.[44] So yes, I do "want to suggest" it. You seem to be suggesting it's a made-up term on Wikipedia. I saw it used in mass transit publications long before Wikipedia appeared. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I looked for a definition on genuine RS, and couldn't find one. Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So now the Brussels Metro is not a reliable source on its own system? You're obviously determined to deny that this term exists outside Wikipedia, no matter what anyone says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you telling me you found a genuine definition associated with the Brussels Metro? Great! How about sharing the URL to this definition you found?

I never said the term was "unused outside of wikipedia." Why would I say that, when I know amateur railfans love this term? But railfans are not WP:Reliable sources. We need to have genuine transit experts define the term. I'll tell you what, if you can find even one genuine professional transit expert who defines the term, and uses it as if were a genuine term accepted by transit professionals, and I will withdraw this nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This sounds like a dictionary definition - except that I can't find it in an English dictionary! Probably explains something we don't know, and that's a good reason not to delete. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination seems to concentrate on the term "premetro" rather than the concept. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so there is no need for sources about the topic to use the same term, but simply to be about the same concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, as per WP:NOR. If you really mean to suggest working on an article about a "concept" that is not defined by or used by professionals in that field what you are suggesting is original research, and it is simply not allowed. Geo Swan (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Especially in a Belgian context, the term is definitely widespread. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is to be about Belgian premetro systems shouldn't it be renamed? Yes, the term is used -- but on rail-fan sites -- not on WP:Reliable sources. As I wrote above, none of the non-Belgian sites should be listed in this article because there are no RS that classify them as "premetro" systems. Their inclusion here is is all original research. Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2013 (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) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article Premetro contains a tidy list of many of the premetro tram/train systems around the world. Searching for "premetro" yields a dog's breakfast of matches. Tabletop (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article contains a list that may look tidy, but is entirely unreferenced and consists entirely of original research. With the exception of the three Belgian systems none of those rapid transit systems belong on this list, because there isn't a single WP:RS that identifies those systems as "premetro" systems. You may find lots of hits when you do a web search, which is irrelevant if those none of those web search hits are to reliable sources. Geo Swan (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Instead of arguing that no sources exist, try looking for some. In less than 5 minutes I found [45] (China), [46], [47], [48] (2nd result in the book is clearest), [49], [50], [51], [52] (Buenos Aires), [53] (Riga), [54] (Vienna), [55] (Buenos Aires), [56] (Buenos Aires), [57] (Kraków). Most of the English language books do refer to Brussels and Antwerp, although there are other cities mentioned too, and there are plenty of Spanish language references to Buenos Aires. As a word that is seemingly fairly new to English it is sometimes rendered as "pre-metro", but the meaning is exactly the same. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that as this event has not yet taken place, notability cannot be established from the sources provided. Should there be significant coverage during/after the event, the article could be re-created PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm seeing quite a few sources that at least are covering the pageant. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you share those sources? -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - [58] [59]. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are helpful. For me, that's not enough to push me over to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A pageant in its first year, and which hasn't even been held yet. The only reliable source I can find is this which profiles a contestant, and is very minor coverage to the pint of being a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2013 (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) 02:19, 11 October 2013 (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) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet, chances are it probably won't be, but who can tell? Mabalu (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pimps Up, Ho's Down[edit]

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

This is a tricky one. On the one hand, neither Rotten Tomatos nor IMDb have any critic reviews of this, the only one I could find was in a small time newspaper, and GNews archives search was otherwise sparse. On the other hand, considering the actors involved, I would not be surprised to find that there is coverage somewhere and I'm just not seeing it. As it stands though, I don't think this meets the GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to~~ America Undercover, the HBO documentary anthology series it aired as a part of (these are real people, not actors, though they probably embellished for the cameras); not really notable on its own though it's one of the more well known AU docs. More surprising to me is how the AU article could be really expanded though. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some sources, but it's going to be a little while before I know if this is going to be enough to warrant a keep. I've found some reviews and it's been mentioned in some books such as this one by New York University Press and this one by the University of California Press. There are more hits, but some of them are hidden under paywalls like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in another academic text that discusses song lyrics that references the documentary. There's mentions in other books, but I'm finding that there are a lot of academic texts that mention the documentary as an example of the sex worker world, for better or worse. It's referenced in quite a few places, but I'll try to keep links here to places that could actually be seen as more reliable in origin. Some of these are brief in nature, but pretty much all of them talk about the documentary as an iconic piece about prostitution. ([60], [61]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to America Undercover. This is a notable enough documentary to where I do think it merits a mention somewhere. However at the same time I can't find anything to create more than the paragraph that's already on the entry. I notice that America Undercover is more than a bit lacking, so I propose that we could take the entire paragraph and just cut and paste that into the main article with just a few revisions. Even if the entry is further fleshed out, this would fit nicely into an episode box on the page for the most part. If someone can find a little more and justify keeping it separate I'm happy to change my vote, but for now I'll say merge and redirect.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NF. To disagree with the esteemed User:Tokyogirl79, this does have enough independent notability no matter the series of which it may have been a part. Independent reviews and commentary showing a meeting of WP:NF include articles in Entertainment Weekly [62][63] Vibe Magazine [64] and Time Magazine [65] and several books.[66] It also seems the book "Pimps Up, Ho's Down: Hip Hop's Hold on Young Black Women" drew heavily upon the film as a resource. And what convinces separate notability is sources such as "Deconstructing Tyrone: A New Look at Black Masculinity in the Hip-Hop Generation" calling it a "cult-hit". Yes, the article need expansion and use of additional available sources, but a merge loses sourced content and a delete is the last resort for only that which is unsalvable. Even were it to remain stub-like, that is within guideline and policy. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, seems to be numerous sources 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2013 (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) 02:14, 11 October 2013 (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) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep per above. Sounds like a reasonable enough argument to me. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep The arguments and added sources convinced me to switch to keeping the article, good job. Nate • (chatter) 08:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarppam[edit]

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

On of many non notable indian film stubs created by the same author. Wikipedia is not imdb Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect for now to P. S. Nivas as an early pre-internet (specially in India) example of his work. It must be noted that most of the Indian Newspaper archives do not store content for before 2000. However, I note a few book sources available under a different spelling of the film's name. The article could be expanded and better sourced by those versed in Malayalam language and Malayalam film. Maybe Project India will take a hand? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:16, 1 October 2013 (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) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems 1987 was incorrect, all sources talk about 1979. Seems somewhat notable. Mentioned in http://books.google.com/books?id=dkxDAAAAYAAJ , amongst others. --Soman (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this distro is not notable at this time, and that the sources provided do not meet the criteria for reliable, independent sources. Should such sources be forthcoming in the future, then the article could be re-created PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pisi Linux[edit]

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

WP:N not established. In fact, I couldn't find a single non-affiliated source, so this might be a matter of WP:TOOSOON. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be an article for deletion? I not see the point. What is wrong with the page? Can someone explain that please?

I am the moderator of forum.pisilinuxworld.org, and I do not understand what is wrong with this wikipedia page. It does look the same as many other linux distro pages. So why is it delete all the time? Richdb69 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richdb69 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviews about Pisi Linux http://linuxmigrante.blogspot.nl/2013/06/pisi-linux-beta-real-life-test.html, http://linuxmigrante.blogspot.nl/2013/03/so-long-pardus-anka-welcome-pisi-linux.html, http://aleqwerty.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/disponible-pisi-linux-rc-el-heredero-de-pardus/ Richdb69 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I see not any reason why to delete it. We trying to create a good linux distro that is open and free for everybody. Richdb69 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated, the notability requirements are not met: an article needs at least two independent, reliable sources (personal blogs don't count). I also urge you to read the conflict of interest guidelines, as well as WP:SOAP. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation (that I do not understand at all). I was allways thinking that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where people can find subjects they read about. And sorry if I read the guidelines I still not understand anything about the rules (they are to long and to hard to read). We are just a hardworking team that is trying to create a wonderfull Linux distro, and this Wikipedia entry was just for people to let them read a little more about the history of Pisi Linux. So maybe we come back in a few years if we have reliable sources ;). Have a nice day :) Richdb69 (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, There is a lot to learn for those of us who may be new to editing articles. Do the Wikipedia admins consider that progress (albeit slow), is being made with this particular article?

Thanks.

Souloftherobot (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No other editors have commented yet, but note that my nomination does not concern the quality of the article. It's about the notability of the topic, and that's still not established. There's one (apparently) independent source that describes the package manager, but notability is not inherited. The rest are all affiliated and self-published sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the article in general, and of course the main problem highlighted is neutrality/notability. Anyway, as to the statement regarding inherited notability, I don't see that applying because the title of the source is Perfect Package Management and although Pardus was listed as using the system, it was PISI (system) that was the focus - not Pardus. Of course, Pardus was the only distro using PISI at the time. Since then, Pisi Linux (as a fork of Pardus) followed by SoluOS use the PISI system. I also don't accept that your latest removal of 'ease of use' from the Pisi Linux article - for reasons of POV - is entirely correct either: Package management (package creation, at least) is not particularly easy. However, I thought the reference I provided supported the inclusion of 'ease of use' in the Pisi Linux article. Btw, Ikey Doherty, has stated that his whole motivation for switching to the PISI system was exactly for reasons of simplicity and ease if use. As ditching one packaging system for another (not a trivial undertaking), and for the reasons given, then I don't see that as simply POV.

Gosh, this seems hard work. I fully understand the need for neutrality etc, but it can be a fine line: I doubt anything like the quantity (or quality) of Wikipedia articles would exist, if people had no interest whatsoever in a particular subject.

I do understand that you must have to point the same things out time and again, which must be a pain. But I think some things can be a little nit-picky, even automatic, maybe making people feel that they perhaps should not continue to work on articles. The POV and the (still unexplained) removal of the word 'readily' from the Pisi Linux article (really, just looking to learn and understand, in order to provide better contributions) are examples. Also, your assumption that I (by your specific) wording was writing about 'my product' seemed dished out a bit auto.

Sorry for the extended nature of this post, but basically the reason for my previous post here was just to get some feedback as to if the article was progress overall and the quality side of things was not really at the front of my mind, as I knew this was not the 'deal-breaker', and could be worked on not under pressure.

Thanks.

Souloftherobot (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the place for extended discussion of the article; let's use the talk page instead. Apologies, again, for the erroneous assumption that you were involved in the Pisi project. As for readily, I still find it an editorializing remark that violates WP:NPOV.
To get back to notability: the referenced source mentions the Pisi package manager, but not Pisi Linux. Since the package manager was developed by the Pardus team, it does not establish notability of Pisi Linux. That's all there is to it: you need at least two (but preferably more) reliable, independent sources that describe Pisi Linux, and not just mention it in passing or describe elements of it that can be found in other systems as well. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new sources about PisiLinux : http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/60624, http://ostatic.com/blog/linux-potpourri-kde-4-11-beta-debian-7-1-pisi-linux-beta Richdb69 (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd found the latter one while hunting for sources myself (I'm not just out to get this page deleted), but it's just a summary taken from somebody's blog. The former looks like a more proper reference with significant coverage of Pisi Linux, ~~feel free to~~ I'll cite it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Souloftherobot (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the overlap between this article and Pardus (operating system), can I suggest that the Pisi Linux page be incorporated into that page as a section? That prevents a lot of duplication of information and would relax the notability requirements. If Pisi Linux takes off and gets sufficient third-party coverage, it can always be split off to its own article again. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Pisi Linux forum contains a post that recruits users to this discussion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recruits? I only ask Pisi Linux to write down the reason why they are using Pisi Linux. And why I did that? Because at the deletion page every single person can write down why something should stay or must be deleted. So wikipedia ask persons to write comments. And that is what I did ask in this forum post. This has nothing todo with recruiting. But I try to rewrite the post so it not looks like recruiting in your eyes. Richdb69 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd come across those as well but wasn't sure if such a 'snippet' could be usefully incorporated. Also, it wrongly states 'Pisi Linux, the predecessor to Pardus Linux'. As to the former, I didn't think it would be accepted. Hmm...

The idea of incorporating Pisi Linux within the Pardus page:

Problem (even if just temp) is that Pardus article is very 'out of sync'.
Pardus is defunct so that is a problem. How can Pisi linux be incorporated (or even overlap at all) either with something that does not exist or with current Pardus - which btw, I'm not even sure what, exactly, current Pardus is. I am not even sure what role TR govt plays now - It is hard to say, but possibly Pardus is now a Community project?
The Pardus article does not make clear the distinction between the defunct Pardus and the current Pardus. The only thing in common is the name. Even though it is mentioned that 2011.2 was last use of Pisi, other components are listed. The two instances of Pardus blur.

The same situation exists at the DWW Page for Pardus - Blurring of the old (and defunct) and the new (and actual status of) distro representing Pardus. It's a bit of a mess.

I can understand this suggestion as an attempt to find a possible (even if temporary) resolution - but I don't see it working.

Point taken about the recruitment.

Souloftherobot (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources, project listings and blogs are the only sources and Google provides nothing better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "....... the only sources". Not one reliable source? "....and Google provides nothing better". You've not been able to find anything - so that's it then, job done? And just when I thought I was starting to get the hang of this. Still, makes life for everyone else easier I suppose. But seriously, This article is making progress (albeit slowly), isn't it? I am in the process of working through all references to try and improve quality and relevance. Also, I aim to try and improve the quality of the article overall. I am no Wikipedia Wizard though and I'm certainly no master of English so my efforts, at least, may take a little while. But I wonder how many articles manifest as 'ready for consumption'?

Souloftherobot (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (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) 02:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how this is a notable distro. Remember we need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The irony is that if supporters/devs put as much time into generating industry media coverage as they have into creating this article, the subject might possibly be notable by now. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your distro - do that elsewhere, get some coverage and then come back. It'll be a whole different story. Stalwart111 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added two sources which are not-affiliated. One of them is Softpedia page and the other one is Distrozilla. Bekiroflaz (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is coverage-by-submission (I could have added that information - see WP:USERG) and the other is nowhere near "significant coverage" with one line (seemingly from the devs) and a list of external links. That's not enough for notability. Stalwart111 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia is a near-indiscriminate collection of software, while the other is indeed an WP:SPS. I've removed these links per WP:ELNO: they're not sources, and they don't add information that cannot be found on the Pisi Linux project website. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Stalwart and Qwertyus.

Stalwart: Firstly, Softpedia is not a user-generated website. It has its own editors. Secondly, I read the policy that you give. But I didn't see any sentence that says about amount of information that presented in the source.

Qwertyus: I didn't read any policy about the representation style of the information in a source. Secondly, I agree that the second one is user-generated. Thirdly, I have read ELNO but I didn't see any policy that supports you. So I will revert your edit. Also I will add new external links. Bekiroflaz (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I won't go into an edit war over this one. I still stand by my point, though: per WP:ELNO, "one should generally avoid providing external links to ... [a]ny site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Softpedia is just a download site with a short description, it doesn't add any information. Distrozilla is an WP:SPS, similar to an open wiki.

Also, Softpedia listing does not confer notability per WP:NSOFT#Inclusion: it does not discuss Pisi Linux as "significant in its particular field". It just lists some features, none of which are particularly unique (except maybe for the "virus free" feature, I've never had that promise from a Linux distro). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor will I, because I think it's a moot point anyway. Softpedia has processes to allow devs to submit their software for inclusion and says nothing about editorial oversight - only that there might be a 24-hour processing delay before software is listed. That's too close to user-generation for me. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage" which 1 line is not. Stalwart111 22:30, 16 October 2013 (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) 02:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pardus, from which this distribution is derived. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any evidence of notability, and my own research has turned up only blogs and reviews of Pardus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a redirect is the answer.

If the Pisi Linux article is unable to satisfy the notability criteria, then it should rather be deleted until such time as legitimate references can be found. Pardus article has problems of its own: outdated and lacks clear distinction between PiSi-based Pardus (EOL since early 2012) and the current Pardus (basically a re-branded Debian). Also, it might even be the case that Pardus is now a 'Community' maintained effort only, and no longer a Turkish government project.

Because of the blurring/confusion generally, as to what Pardus actually is, I feel that lumping Pisi Linux in with Pardus would just add to the confusion - and that (obviously) is totally counter to the aims of any work of reference. So, if it is determined that Pisi Linux does not warrant an article of itself (notability/toosoon) then deletion seems more logical than redirect.

Souloftherobot (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand those concerns. However, if Pisi was once a fork, then this can certainly be documented there. If necessary, an explicit statement can be made that Pisi Linux is no longer related to Pardus. If this seems too confusing, then I'd endorse deletion as an alternative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Animal Preservation Society[edit]

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

Seriously? A couple of namechecks that make it clear the Society is a tiny and bonkers outfit? Guy (Help!) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just did some Google searches, and while the seriousness of this organisation is in doubt, it seems to be a body that has been reported on in the media, and has the support of some high profile people. Articles from notable newspapers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a little worried that there is a depth of coverage here. This looks like it was launched fairly recently, in September 2013. We have to be careful about this, as sometimes things can get a brief spurt of coverage over the period of say, a week or a month, but not really show any in-depth coverage, sort of how you'll have dozens upon dozens of articles about a woman who dresses herself up to look like Barbie, has a 15 inch waist, or a monkey wearing a jacket at IKEA. You can sometimes show notability with just a month's coverage and we have a week to do it with, so it could still pass notability guidelines. A possible solution is to look to see if the company's founder has notability enough to merit an article. We could include this in an article about him and redirect there. If a major corporation that already has an article is sponsoring or has taken charge of it, we could create a subsection in their article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the creator's article might be the way to go. From what I can see, he's written quite a few things and has been a presenter on some TV series such as Inside Nature's Giants and was a voice on Plasmo. Tokyogirl79
You made me go look up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikea Monkey, I wish there was a wikipedia for ephemeral stories like that so I could look them up when, inevitably, people discuss them many years later despite everyone's claims that no one would remember it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The online poll for ugliest animal got an insane amount of media coverage around the world, but that could still be viewed as a single event without any consequences. But there's other coverage, e.g. the articles in the Daily Telegraph, Brighton Argus, and Guru Magazine (I'm not totally sure Guru is a independent/reliable source; it's funded by the Wellcome Trust, a charity which promotes various good causes). Regarding creating an article on Simon Watt, he on his own has not received more coverage than this event (although there is e.g. interviews with New Scientist and The Naked Scientists [67], it's mainly about the ugly animal campaign). It's a little tricky to judge what notability criteria to apply, because this isn't an organisation, it's really a theatrical event that has been staged several times, and an associated internet thing (the widely-reported poll). I wondered about merging this to an article on criticisms of conservationism, but could not find anything relevant. In the absence of a suitable alternative, I suggest keeping, although if people can find sufficient material for an article on Simon Watt that would be a valid way to go. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while Tokyogirl79 says it started in September 2013, the first event was held in October 2012 and there's press from Feb/March 2013. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has garnered sufficient coverage to pass for notability, and after the success they have had we will hear more. This may seem bonkers to the nom, but there is a serious intent. The title will be a conscious reference to the emphasis in most environmental campaigns and the media on 'charismatic megafauna' like elephants and whales. Biologists have been arguing for years that this distorts public understanding of environmental conservation needs and funding. I do not think it is a criticism of conservation efforts as such, because I doubt whether many who have been engaged with that at the scientific level would take issue with it. It is more about trying to get the wider message across and it has a deliberate and express educational purpose, with talks to schools. It presumably intends to do for biology what Horrible Histories has done for history amongst children, by making it fun. --AJHingston (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the original author of the piece, I am not here to vote on it or defend it so much as to see what I can add to the conversation regarding the proposal for its deletion (okay, and defend it just a little). I am a Wikipedia deletionist myself, and at first glance would have readily nominated an article such as this. However, after finding significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources, I figured I had covered my bases (The Guardian is a pretty significant and reliable source, yes?). The organization's (?) web site is rather sparse on details about what it really does or what its history is, but I have spoken by email with Mr. Watts and he has agreed to try to augment the site in these respects— Mr. Watts, of course, is not a reliable third party source of information, but any information coming from him would not be used to establish a claim of notability anyway. I believe the threshold of notability has already been reached, which is why I created the article and why I believe that Wikipedia should have such an article. If deleted now, I suspect it will be recreated soon by someone else on an even stronger notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 20:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the fact that the article has been viewed more than 4,000 times since its creation just over a month ago, a pretty good indicator of the subject's notability all on its own. KDS4444^Talk 05:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As far as I can see from reading the article this is miscategorised as an organisation, when it is in fact a comedy performance. It thus appears in theatrical reviews, not conservation magazines. Whether or not it is a notable performance, I am not qulified to judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually heard about it from BBC Wildlife magazine, which is about wildlife, not theatre. But like you, I'm not qualified to judge of this is notable. –anemone projectors– 15:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compared to other notable comedy skits/bits I am not seeing the significiant claim for notability. Yes it may be the flash in the pan for a week while the internet's attention span is on it, but does not seem to have the enduring notability necessary to transition into true notability. Hasteur (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2013 (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) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is evidence here that the Society has been around and doing performances since October 21 of 2012 (almost exactly a year ago). Can you give me a sense of how many years would be necessary to make a claim of notability more dependable/ reliable? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 08:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As I said above, this is a comedy performance, not a society. The question is whehter the show is notable: I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter is clearly notable - it has been reported in both scientific and mainstream press and online, and is of broad general public interest internationally (it touches on an issue of conservation priority as well hence the scientific interest). In any case, even if it were a 'flash in the pan' (which it doesn't appear to be given its longevity over a year), that doesn't reduce it's notability - a murder or significant accident is also a notable 'flash in the pan'. Any difficultly in defining whether this issue should be listed as a) an event, b) cultural, c) an organisation, d) under the organisation's creator; or e) as an issue, is semantics - important - but should not cause an otherwise notable issue be deleted.Amarantus (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there are no reliable, independent sources establishing the notability of this software PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LassoLab[edit]

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

No assertion of any notability and no evidence of notability. Only refs are a press release published on yahoo and own web-site Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SeanStephens Speaking as the CEO, LassoSoft was expressly requested by the Lasso community to write this content, as past content has been (or is) incorrect currently listed on Wikipedia. There have been thousands of downloads of LassoLab - many more than many of the comparable articles posted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eclipse-based_software. Also, as Lasso has millions of web pages live on the web with a 20 year history of tens of thousands of users and is poorly and incorrectly represented on Wikipedia. I'll admit, I have no idea how to use WIkipedia, and would rather not make edits. —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete (agree all points) TEDickey (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge Seems the article is an advertising page, created by the Lasso CEO. However, it is important, as it's the IDE for the Lasso product. I think it should be merged into Lasso with a small section describing the prodict or heavily expanded. It could be really innovative bit software, after all these guys are striking out from the main Asp.net\php\Oracle pl/sql\Java web development crowd. scope_creep talk 19:08 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Lasso (programming language) has similar issues, probably should be deleted as well (not much of a recommendation) TEDickey (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Lasso (programming language) article describes a major product line. It's an very well established web framework from an established company. It is clearly notable. Have a look at Talk:Lasso (programming language) The article itself is mostly well written bu needs work in some sections. scope_creep talk 19:59 12 October 2013 (UTC)

no - what the talk page tells me explicitly is that it's a niche product ("major" is not an applicable term), with perhaps a few hundred users (half of the discussion is written by people who are involved with developing or promoting the product). To see what "major" might apply to, look at these, which list languages which are orders of magnitude more common:

"comparing" something to php for instance does not actually mean that the two are comparable in terms of the number of users. Lacking WP:RS, the reader is likely to conclude that it's simply another product description which hasn't been deleted yet TEDickey (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a fallacious argument. First of all your comparing a programming language to a what is essentially a large and mature web application stack. It not the same thing. Secondly your using commonality of programming languages as a basis of importance. These sites, like Tiobe.com rely on job advertising sites to aggregate, summarize and compile their lists, which is dubious at best. Being at the top of the list doesn't automatically confer more importance or notability than those items at at the bottom. Of course, if it's at the top of the list, it's more likely to be notable, but not automatically notable by default. Take TCL for instance, a wee obscure language, which is at the bottom of most lists of this type. It's at the bottom of most lists of this type. But at the same time, it's used in a very large number of old embedded systems, and used in the utilities industry, particularly in control systems for power stations, here in Europe (don't know about continents). It's both notable and important, but from your argument, it wouldn't be. It's out of site, out of mind, out of fashion, but exceedingly important. Secondly according to some of the comments on the talk, it's a FileMaker shoe in, which was vastly popular in the early to late 90's, one of the big 3 database systems before Windows, then it's clearly notable. Particularity if it's used by the top 15000 institutions. scope_creep talk 15:23 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.232.253 (talk)

you appear to have missed the point: there are no reliable sources given to support any of your comments. Talk page comments are not a reliable source, and don't have anything to do with demonstrating notability. Bye. TEDickey (talk)

User:Bfad5e Speaking as someone who uses LassoLab and has used other Eclipse-based products in the past, I'd say keep. Some of what they are doing is what's common to all these language tools, and some of it is innovative, but even if there's nothing innovative about it, why not keep with all the others? Just because you've not heard of a programming language before doesn't mean it's not important or significant, it just means you're unfamiliar with it. —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Bfad5e (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:fletc3her "Keep" LassoLab is an evolution of Lasso Studio for Eclipse which has been on the market since 2004. Here is an article comparing Lasso and PHP. I think part of the problem with perceiving Lasso as a "niche" product is that it started as a Macintosh product so isn't as familiar as projects which evolved primarily in the Linux community. http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.22/22.07/PHPvsLasso/index.html — fletc3her (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

merge and redirect to Lasso_(programming_language). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 17 October 2013 (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) 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USER:Steffan Cline

Keep After reading through the comments above, the nay-sayers seem to be confused about a few things. One, the list of software based on Eclipse are all independently notable if they are released for a reasonably-sized user base. This helps new individuals use the information on Wikipedia to help them navigate the development tools they use on a day to day basis. There are many other comparably sparse articles, who should all be seen as "notable". A brief walk through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eclipse-based_software shows you a list of similar articles who are also relevant to users of Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actifsource https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFEclipse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Composer_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyEclipse

and many more...

In addition, the biologist above missed the point: LassoLab is free, open-source, and built in Java, not Lasso. It is free, and based on Eclipse, like many other IDEs. However, it's not the only tool used to develop in Lasso. Most developers use Coda, BBedit, DreamWeaver, Sublime, etc., as proven in a recent poll of Lasso developers. This should not be merged into Lasso page, or it implies that it is the most popular or most important one. the Here are the other more popular ones; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coda_(web_development_software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bbedit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamweaver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_studio The fact that this software is "released" by LassoSoft is irrelevant. It's an important piece of software for an emerging language (Lasso 9) with a 20 year history of developers and strong connections to many of the Fortune 500 and thousands of businesses worldwide. As for the notability guidelines - this is a recent development in the Lasso language and the first version. It should be given a fair chance for external writers and bloggers to find it and write about it by referencing the article on Wikipedia. It deserves a separate article like other Eclipse-based-software and should not be merged, but be an independent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffan Cline (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

of course, the reader may notice that most of the promotional comments have been made by persons having a decided conflict of interest, and that reliable sources have generally been ignored in this discussion. TEDickey (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Lasso community members have suggested on an external forum that perhaps the solution is to add a secondary article listing the commonly used Lasso editors (comparable to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PHP_editors, for example). As there is no listing on the web of editors used by the Lasso community, it is difficult for reliable sources to contextualize how Lasso is edited, and thus individuals with little or no development experience (as per above) would not find any of the Eclipse-based editors notable. SeanStephens 11:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) — Seanstephens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth P. Thompson[edit]

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

not notable. Running for local office does not make him notable. noq (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold If Tompson is elected I think he will be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (leaving a redirect) to the appropriate page on the election in question, with no prejudice against recreation after a successful election. This is a well established situation at AfD, unelected candidates not meeting GNG outside of coverage relating to an unsuccessful or ongoing campaign have by consensus ended up as Merge/Redirects to the campaign article. My own personal preference would be for a lower bar, but I can live with the consensus... Carrite (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect preserving page history either to New York v. Strauss-Kahn, where the subject is already mentioned repeatedly, or to a page on the election, which currently does not have a page but seems to be generating a lot of news coverage, mainly due to the subject winning against the incumbent in the Democratic primary and the incumbent then standing on the Republican line against the subject in the general election. The subject already has some notability in connection with at least two different events, and assuming he wins in the current election (for which he is favorite), even though county district attorneys are not automatically notable, notability seems almost unavoidable when the county is coterminous with Brooklyn. PWilkinson (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a platform fro electioneering. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2013 (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) 01:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. First off, he won the Democratic nomination, which is tantamount to election in Brooklyn. He defeated the longtime incumbent Hynes. Second, the Kings County DA is the public prosecutor for a jurisdiction of about 2.5 million people. That's almost as big as the city of Chicago, or larger than San Francisco, Boston and Detroit combined. --- Take a look at how much independent coverage Hynes got during his tenure (for example: 974,000 Google hits); Thompson will be under the same kind of constant scrutiny. He will be accountable for every criminal prosecution in the largest subset of NYC, so his motives and priorities will constantly be questioned for as long as he holds the position. This post is not for some shy back bench time-server, rather, it means being at the center of every controversy and debate about crime in Brooklyn. Kestenbaum (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Yes, Hynes is still running, on the Republican and Conservative lines, but for him to beat Thompson is pretty much inconceivable. Brooklyn has seven times as many Democrats as Republicans, and it has been almost a century since a Republican borough-wide candidate won more than 37% of the vote. See, for example: [68] [69] [70] [71] --- Besides, it's only 13 days to the election, and it would be silly to delete now, when it will need to be re-created in a couple weeks. The article as it stands is totally inadequate, but there will be enormously more material available in the coming weeks and months. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kestenbaum. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Two-Hawks[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, flagged since 2010. Many complaints on talk page that this is an advert, and that attempts to include subjects real name and ethnicity have been deleted. There is a problem with non-Native musicians and writers trying to use Wikipedia to establish an Indigenous identity for themselves, and I think this is one of those cases. The article could stand on the basis of his music only, without the false claims on Native status, IF his musical contributions are judged notable. However, I am not sure they are. - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When searching for relevant sources, make sure they are about the same person as this BLP, as there are a number of people using this name. Also, many of the results that come up in a google test are concert listings or other ad copy that was submitted by the subject and never fact-checked. Diff where I removed some of the unsourced claims: [72]. Diff where a SPA removed non-advert info and added even more promotion: [73] - Slàn, Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2013 (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) 01:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As the nominator is now 'neutral', the consensus is to keep PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamuddin Markaz Masjeed[edit]

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

Zero references. Not written in encyclopedic style, written more like a myth narrative. Heavy usage of WP:PEACOCK terminology "...a godly person..." "...a man of angelic disposition..." Appears to be copy/paste from any of a number of websites, including [74]. Loses focus of the the article's subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The above judgement was based on a huge chunk of cut-and-paste copyvio text, now removed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 00:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2013 (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.Z-man 20:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restubbify. All revisions after this one are copyvios. Would delete speedily myself, but a few more days won't make any difference. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, restubbify (did it; clear copyvio). Reasonable claim of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My copyvio complaint was taken care of by Staszek Lem. (Thank you!) If the community deems this a notable structure, deserving of an article/stub, I yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, "It is the global center for the Tablighi network and the origin of the Tablighi Jamaat." is the key phrase here, i.e. being the epicentre for a movement of some 10 million+ followers. Googling "Nizamuddin Markaz" gives more results, seems to be a more common naming. --Soman (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2013 (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) 01:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhambra[edit]

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

Not notable. Mentioned in a list of clans produced by one of several caste associations but not discussed in any significant manner in reliable sources. Sitush (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tarkhan (Punjab) (I guess). Unable to find sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot really redirect because the article itself gives two alternates (Ramgarhia being the other). We could turn it into a dab but the only verification is a list of names. And it should go because at best it does seem to be just a name - not notable and arguably WP:DICDEF. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How about a redirect to the city of Banbhore, since this source says "Bhambore (aka Banbhore) is famously known as Bhambra among Khudabadi Sindhi Swarankar Community". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now you want to redirect to a placename using a circular reference as verification? The clain is unsourced in the article that you link, despite appearances. Give it up: if the thing is notable then someone can always recreate it. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Withdrawing from this. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2013 (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.Z-man 20:04, 11 October 2013 (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) 01:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Baptist Association[edit]

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

Unsourced stub for seven years - I cannot find one reliable source to support the existence of this organization. Acather96 (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-verifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to be the problem. There is a page on the Japanese Wikipedia for the Nihon Baputesuto Rengō (ja:日本バプテスト連合), which is given there as the Japan Baptist Association. That article provides a number of printed sources, but no internet ones. The association does seem to exist (here is a church that says it is a member), but is hard to research. The English article, however, says that the JBA is associated with the Baptist General Conference, while the Japanese article says its JBA is associated with American Baptist Association. Doing some searching, I found that there is another organization called the Nihon Baputesuto Kyōkai Rengō (roughly, Japan Association of Baptist Churches) which also has a JP Wikipedia article (ja:日本バプテスト教会連合) and which is actually associated with the Baptist General Conference. They do have a home page here. So it seems that the article is just wrong. Both organizations exist, though I hesitate to judge right now which is more likely to pass WP:ORG. An error itself, if it can be fixed, is not reason to delete, but in deciding this AfD we first have to choose which organization the article is referring to, and then decide whether that passes notability criteria. Michitaro (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Christianity is of course a minority religion in Japan, though I am told it has been quite influential on attitudes there. This is a denomination and exists. We should keep the aritcle and hope that one day someone will translate the Japanese WP articel into it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Michitaro, it might be better to create a second stub and correct the errors on this one, so we can have a rational discussion on the two organisations involved. ~~Otherwise, we should just redirect to Protestantism in Japan until a good article can be written~~. -- 101.119.14.115 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have corrected the error on this article. -- 101.119.14.115 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since sources exist -- 101.119.14.115 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2013 (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) 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...and clarify which body this refers to - it seems legitimate sources exist, but may not be in English and not online. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete this article. Should someone want it salted, I would suggest that this be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3MB[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Same concern as past two deletion nominations: Sources in article add nothing in terms of notability to the previously-deleted one. Fails WP:GNG — Richard BB 14:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the previous AfD it seemed that people knew this passed the GNG but nobody cared enough to get sources. Here's some:[75][76][77][78]. Should be enough to cover all concerns.LM2000 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they fit everything for an individual tag team page. They have a theme and have promos for them. After a year they might be floundering but they are established. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP (edited): They haven't had an article until now. Even though they lose a lot, this page is worth keeping. They are still an established tag team. D-Generation X and The Brothers of Destruction may have been way more notable, but this article is still worth keeping. They deserve an article. 76.220.66.126 (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt They aren't really notable, the page is poorly sourced barely sourced as it is. They're are barley a team. Per Generally acceptable standards for pro wrestling, fails WP:ENTERTAINER - recently-established team of "heels" with no history of influence/notability. Also, article's references (all of which emanate from the WWE) fail the reliable source standard of being independent of the subject. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They've been around for over a year and the sources I've provided pass the minimum requirements for the WP:GNG bar. As I've said before, it seems that in the previous AfD others knew there were sources out there to save the article, and now we have them. However the article itself has not improved, so if it survives deletion it will need work. If it doesn't survive deletion then it needs to be salted because this is the third time this article has been remade with no improvements.LM2000 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable as tag team or stable. No notable feuds or matches. We can put the information in the singles articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Nothing at all has changed since the last AfD, the team has still not been significantly covered in reliable sources. The whole article is basicly weekly events and they fail WP:GNG. STATic message me! 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt—I've yet to see any references, in the article, or in this discussion, that show this is a notable group. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE or brief mentions. In my opinion, they fail the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:00, 25 October 2013 (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) 01:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you delete put an administrator lock so no one will be able to remake it. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject is not independently notable, with the article veering towards promotion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Joseph Baum[edit]

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

not notable independently of Splunk for which we already have an article. The sources given are mostly about Splunk and not Baum. The article was repeatedly rejected at Articles for creation until the author unilaterally moved it into main space. noq (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) See history of original AFC article here. noq (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2013 (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) 01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you do read through the Articles for Creation process dialog that took place, the author responded to all the feedback that was given and made repeated changes. I'd say this is an example where the process didn't work so well. The last several rounds of feedback were repeating previous rounds and really didn't even make sense. The author asked for additional feedback or posting of the article and nobody ever responded. Also there is significant notability here beyond the one subject, Splunk, that you mention. I cannot find articles about FOUNDER.org or the other companies which the subject of the article was involved in creating. Snnuggles (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Snnuggles. There are a number of topics here about Baum's involvement in the startup, tech, big data scenes that have nothing to do with Splunk. I've just counted and 14 of the 26 references are about other topics other than Splunk that the subject of the article has been involved with including Founder.org, Collation, Rembrandt Ventures, DotBank, Yahoo and number of Patents where Baum is the primary inventor. I'm finding with lots of things wikipedia, we all need to sometimes, read a bit deeper. Arootoo (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with due respect to the single purpose editors above, the references that are not about Splunk are the patent applications - not significant, directory entries - not significant, or alumni blogs - not significant. noq (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added four more references, three on student entrepreneurs winning FOUNDER.org $100K grants and one on Baum's recent venture capital investment. Still contend that this article contains many solid notable references on the subject matter. "Granted Patent" references, not merely "Patent Applications" are very notable and significant, considering the topics at hand of innovation and entrepreneurship. The US PTO takes 5-7 years to vet patent applications and grant broad reaching patents like the three Baum is credited with. Hummphry (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more references on Big Data investing and FOUNDER.org investing in student startups. Hummphry (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even though heavily referenced, this just stinks of self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ardcarne[edit]

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

The entire article appears to be an extract from some unreferenced text. Sarah777 (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you see something that appears to be, try google and the licht doth ye findeth. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, cleanup. The article is cut-and-paste from a [79] 1840 (public domain) book, and I edited the article accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "speedy" keep. — O'Dea (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with the article is that it's going to need an enormous amount of work to bring it up to standard, and even if it is to standard, I don't think it would be notable. It describes a townland, which is the smallest administrative and geographical division of land in Ireland, of which there are 61+k currently. Are we going to have an article for every one? In Scotland the are called settlements/townships. The problem with that, is I created a large number of such articles >300 for the Places in Highland and every one of them were eventually deleted by admins. They were simply too small in area to contain any relevant details. If there was a historical artifact, like a castle, or standing stones on it, for instance, then they were changed to a castle article. Also, the only artifacts on that bally, are a garden center, a large house and a farm, all quite non notable. If you desperate to keep the work, change it so it's a parish article. Seems to be very few parishes of Ireland articles, and the articles that leaf out of them. scope_creep talk 18:48 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, sadly as it may be, this AfD forced me, a person way far remote from the Ireland in all senses, to figure out that in addition to the townland (small indeed) there is also a parish of the same name, which is not so small, and about which this article actually is. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Officially recognized populated geographic location. WP:NGEO and WP:NPLACE. Finnegas (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2013 (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) 01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - The article is entirely copied and pasted from its source. — O'Dea (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to mess much with the text: it is a historical document, and wikipedia is not paper, and can keep it. However the text about modern times is highly desirable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What text about "modern times"? It is historical text. — O'Dea (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It's verified here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Triton Media Group. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Digital[edit]

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

Doesn't appear especially notable, article seems to have no neutral content. James^x12345 18:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is clearly beyond promotional, although what do you expect from an advertising company? :-) Seriously, doing a little research shows it appears to be a division of Triton Media Group, and the survivor a merger with Ando Media. Those two are marginal as well, but if we merged all three into Triton Media Group it might have a better chance of getting one article in neutral tone. There is nothing in the body of the existing Triton Digital article that is worth saving, although one or two of the sources might work in the parent article. A delete might also be justified, except it would lose the history of the redirect, risking going through all this again when they re-create it. W Nowicki (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2013 (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) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per W Nowicki. The three companies together might add up to notability. This company by itself - no. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Voynich Alphabet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There isn't coverage of this sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think that it's notable enough to even consider merging. There are plenty of other attempts at creating an alphabet for the Voynich manuscript, and there's no reason to include this one above all others. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per lack of independent coverage. If references to such coverage are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2013 (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) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article advocating one theory about how to construct an alphabet -- for what amounts to a parlor game. Thus it constitutes a disallowed content fork. As the nom asserts, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage, much less any reliable secondary sources, as Stuartyeates has noted. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication this is used by anyone other than its inventors. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is insufficient reliable coverage to establish notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Bridge[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Limited sources, one which just says "Transformers#US24". Lacks GNG. ///EuroCarGT 01:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources (blogs and primary sources only). Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, not notable enough for a seperate article Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~KEEP to Transformers technology, per WP:Before C4 which states that if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. With some additional research I found dozens of articles mentioning the Space Bridge from the recent film. I added one here. Keep this article. Mathewignash (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Articles, even from reliable sources, that only discuss in-universe information about the Space Bridge (such as the part that it played in the recent film) are not enough to display notability. This should either be merged into Transformers technology or one of the articles proposed for creation below by The Bushranger . --Jpcase (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs) reasoning, I know we don't delete a lot of Transformers articles. JJ98 (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be something that can be salvaged as a standalone article. Alternatively List of Transformers objects or List of Transformers artifacts might be an appropriate merge-creation for this, Matrix of Leadership, and other "bits and bobs" that lack individual out-of-universe notability but, as a group, are worth mentioning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 2013 (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) 01:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Transformers technology or delete. Topic is not notable and does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ayrton Senna. I was going to close this as Delete - the arguments for such are clearly superior and more numerous - but in case anyone wants to merge anything useful across, I have redirected with history intact. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of achievements by Ayrton Senna[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)

No obvious notability for this list as a whole, a lot of achievements listed of very questionable notability. GameLegend (talk)

Comment - 1) I'm getting sick of this useless, endless and taking-to-nowhere debate; how long will it last? who is gonna take the decision of mantaining or deleting it? When such decision is taken, will people still be able to demand its removal or, in the case, reposting? 2) For those who are against keeping it, what do you suggest? which (any?) of the items would you keep and "permit" to be posted in the main article? Marceltp86 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like with every other driver who holds a multitude of absolute records (Schumacher, Vettel, Hamilton), the notable absolute records in a section at the bottom, as it already is. Though I'd vote to remove the 'most wins for McLaren', as it is another case of a very specific record (this one team). GameLegend (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the list itself seems like a sensible content fork for a list of achievements that would otherwise make the Ayrton Senna article way too long. Much the same as List of career achievements by Michael Jordan or List of awards and nominations received by Jay Chou. If some of the awards/accolades/statistics/claims are dubious or unsourced or unreliably sourced, that should definitely be raised on the list talk page or even boldly edited out. But is that a reason to delete the article? Stalwart111 09:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have considered boldly editting them out, and came to the conclusion it would leave very little relevant, notable content. Hence I though an Afd would be preferrable. GameLegend (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it is suggested above, there are plenty of lists with much more dubious and unreliably sourced articles, apecially about basketball players: will you suggest to delete everyone? This list intended to show the full picture of Ayrton Senna's career, and he is up to now the only Formula One racing driver with a page with detailed statistics. It seems quite strange that all of a sudden such questions came up. The article was first published in February, 2013. Every single stat posted is easily verifiable, and questioning this seems a little arrogant - to state which statistic or number is relevant or not. Check the page with the List of career achievements by Roger Federer or the aforementioned Michael Jordan's. These pages have many repeated and - as for your own judgement - irrelevant data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Other pages also being wrong, don't make this one right. GameLegend (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst every single statistic might be verifiable, it is not up to the casual reader to verify them. Every single statistic should be referenced, I know similar articles get away with not doing this, but that is not an excuse for it not to be done here.Martin451 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senna was one of the top Formula 1 drivers of all time. Whilst some of the individual achievements may not be notable, when they are all taken together they become notable. A look at the article shows that there are enough citations to keep this as a stand alone list.Martin451 21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martin451, when he says that it is the whole of the achievements that show the greatness of someone. Senna deserves this page, my first intention when creating it was to make it a kind of a benchmark. Also, I have made some editions and deletions on my own after reading your comments - and I agree that some facts should be excluded, but knowing how many kilometres or laps he raced, for example, helps to give a clear view of the importance of his achievements. Thus, I consider this discussion over, as I don't see any reason why this article deserves to be excluded except for the fact that not every citation has a link - and that I can resolve through time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A citation of the fact is not a citation of the notability of "being the all-time leader in points scored for Toleman", or such things. GameLegend (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I have missed a change in Wikipedia policy that these sort of facts are now considered notable, as an inclusionist I have no problem with it. But last I remember Vettel's and Schumacher's pages were clipped because of exactly this reason. Any feedback on the general Wikipedia standing of such notability? GameLegend (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a "change" per se, more just an acceptance of the principles set out at WP:SPLIT (I noted WP:CFORK before but it is more accurately a split). Senna himself is notable as a sports person and listing those sporting achievements that made him a notable sports person is acceptable. Where listing them in his article would make the article too long (as in the examples given above), splitting them out into a list article is acceptable. Ayrton Senna is already 114k - adding these achievements would make it 150k+. Stalwart111 22:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So guys, I am removing the message that is on the top of the article, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.95.112.173 (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? The AFD template? No, that needs to stay until this discussion has finished and been closed. Stalwart111 12:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... and when will it finish? "GameLegend" seems determined to make this discussion last til the article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I suggest you have a read through WP:AFD. AfDs (discussion like this one) generally last one week. Normally an admin will read through and decide the outcome based upon consensus and arguments. Some may be extended when an outcome is unclear and few people have contributed.Martin451 13:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this page is claimed to list achievements that show the greatness of Ayrton Senna the majority of the achievements that are listed are nowhere near unique and have been eclipsed by a considerable number of other drivers. Unless any actual records are listed that show his greatness and how he was greater than others I can't see the need for a seperate page for this. Tvx1 (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that argument doesn't make a lot of sense. These are achievements that made him notable and notability is not temporary. Just like in the examples provided above, many of the achievements might have been surpassed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't record them. And if we're going to record them, they shouldn't be in his article for the reasons outlined at WP:SPLIT. Stalwart111 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So you think that achievements like 34th all-time in number of seasons competed, 26th all-time in number of Grands Prix race, 22th all-time in number of km raced, 8th all-time in number of consecutive wins, 10th all-time in number of podiums in one season, 13th youngest to have set the fastest lap of a race,etc... show his greatness and justify a separate page? Most of them aren't even great achievements since they weren't records when he set them and he has dropped even further in those rankings ever since. There's just not enough to justify this page. You could make such pages for just about any driver (of course some of them would be longer than others). Tvx1 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are some achievements that aren't relevant or sourced, removed them. That's a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem, not a reason for deletion. If such lists can be created for other drivers, you should feel free to create them. The article creator has done exactly what guidelines suggest he do. Stalwart111 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - arguments about notability are a bit of a side-track here because there is no doubt that a 3-time F1 World Champion is notable. Guidelines provide for lists like this where including such a list would otherwise make an article way too large and unwieldy which is undoubtedly the case here. Stalwart111 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Ayrton Senna isn't notable by himself. I tried to point out that the majority of the so called "Great" achievements mentioned on this page aren't that great after all and do not do justice to his greatness at all. Furthermore if even a 7-time F1 world champion doesn't deserve such a page than why does a 3-time F1 world champion deserve one? Tvx1 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "deserving" - we're not here to "reward" people with articles. We're here to record things deemed notable and he is. His achievements are part of what makes him notable and so we record those. If other drivers have similar (or longer) lists of achievements and recording those would create lengthy articles, creating separate lists might be appropriate in those cases too. But the fact that we have more to do isn't a good justification for deleting what has already been done (see WP:OSE). Stalwart111 22:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would really like this article to remain available in its original shape, because some of the statistics and informations it offers simply cannot be found elsewhere in internet. I understand its not written in an usual format, but then again it brings some new information about a very important sportsman, that would probably not fit in a conventional biography page. Mamadeira (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC) — Mamadeira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - The argument posed by "Tvx1" shows something very simple: he is a Michael Schumacher fan, just like the other guy "GameLegend", and thus he believes that even if Michael Schumacher (the greatest of all-time BECAUSE he has won more than others) does not have a page, then nobody deserves that. This is the silliest point I have read through this endless and useless discussion: it all started because a fan of someone believes that Senna wasn't as great. But I believe there are at the very least two reasons why we should keep this article: 1) as I have said before, there are lots of pages dedicated to sportspeople, specially basketball players, which simply LIST what they did and achieved: it does not need to be an all-time record, or something this impressive, it is just what he or she has achieved. And once this person is a notable - notability DOES NOT rely on records, but on charisma, fame, importance, historical relevance and influence -, he or she will call attention and bring readers to wikipedia as a means to RESEARCH about their lives and careers. Thus, the page works as a perfect source of what one achieved through his life and shows how great he or she was - not that great, for some; amazing, for others. 2) The weak and silly argument by Tvx1 ("if 7-time champion doesn't deserve such a page than why does a 3-time deserve?") shows, for example, that Michael Jordan (six-time), Kobe Bryant (five) and LeBron James (two) do not deserve their own 'List of career achievements' pages, once the 11-time NBA champion Bill Russell doesn't have one. From the tennis players, only Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer have pages. Why don't Novak Djokovic or Pete Sampras deserve one? The intention of the page IS NOT to show that Senna was the ultimate driver ACCORDING TO NUMBERS, but to show everything he had achieved through his career, which WAS INTERRUPTED. It works as an interesting resource for people to find out more about him - many of the numbers (10th, 13th, etc) were top-2 or top-3 stats when he raced, by the way. And this page CAN and SHOULD be a benchmark for creating a page for Michael Schumacher (do you need any help, Tvx1?), Sebastian Vettel, Juan Manuel Fangio, Alain Prost, Jim Clark and others. It has never been a matter of ONLY SENNA deserving it. Don't put things this way. If you guys delete this page because IN YOUR POINT OF VIEW the numbers of one are not relevant, then you should EXCLUDE every single page except for the ones of the all-time leaders in the main stats. Create a rule for that: Basketball - Bill Russell; F1 - Michael Schumacher; Tennis - Federer; and so on. Honestly, I can't see any reason for deleting the page except for a selfish and biased fanboyish intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I do not like to be accused of having a certain opinion because of being a fan of someone. Now I'm going to reveal something you probably didn't expect. I'm a huge Ayrton Senna fan. The only reason I brought up Michael Schumacher is because a similar article has been created for him in the past and was deleted as quickly as it was created as pointed out earlier in the discussion. I might as well have mentioned Fangio and Prost as they both have won more titles than Senna did. I can't see why we have to make a special exception for him, even though I am a huge fan of him. I have voted for Delete because if we remove all the rather pointless stats from the page, the remaining few do not justify a seperate page and could easily be incorporated in his own article; which is why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. There is enough justification for this nomination by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:CRUFT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Senna's own article does him more than enough justice and the additional stats article does not make him any greater than he was. The fact that you cannot live with another user's opinion does not give you the right to aim a personal against that user. Tvx1 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, the point is: instead of DELETING Senna's page because Schumy's was deleted, why not creating one for Schumacher in the same standards? From my point of view, not only Schumacher and Vettel, but also Fangio, Clark, Stewart and Prost deserve it - and I have been working on data for Fangio (which in my opinion was the GOAT). Marceltp86 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly Senna is notable; that is not the issue, but a large proportion of these achievements are not notable even by F1 standards, let alone wider encyclopedic standards. Most of it is omiited from Senna's article not because it would make it too long, but because the statistics are of almost zero encyclopedic value. Even books on Senna don't cover this stuff. Wikipedia is not a stats dump, and point 3 of that policy was defined precisely for article like this one. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went into this expecting to argue for "keep" based on WP:SPINOUT, but...oy vey. This is, quite bluntly, 90% WP:CRUFT that fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is rather contrived fancruft and appears to have little encyclopaedic value as it stands. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, I have been updating Magic Johnson's page... I had nothing better to do in my life... so let's have fun and consider excluding it too? ¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To put it simple: if achievement pages such as this are permited for other sportsmen, then Senna's Achievement List cannote be deleted. If it is to be deleted, then also should be the achievement pages of other sportsmen. Wikipedia is not a place for fanboys to support their idols. Besides, i think marceltp86 has said enough about it.--Cassioyared (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Cassioyared (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence (or not) of other sportsmens' achievement pages is utterly irrelevant to whether or not this one gets kept. Please also note that referring to other editors as "fanboys" could be considered a personal attack. (Also, being absent for 10 months then suddenly reappearing to !vote in an AfD on the only subject you have ever edited raises eyebrows, I might note.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess the point is not like "oh, others have, so everyone deserves to have": the problem is the kind of arguments pro-deletion: it is being very biased and unfair: saying that a page should be deleted because of the (Ir)relevance of what the person has achieved. Come on! Wikipedia has a Dennis Rodman page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marceltp86 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Once again: where is your coherence? As far as I'm concerned - through reading the section of "articles for deletion" in the "sportspeople" - this is the only full list of achievements to be deleted. Marceltp86 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no idea what you mean by "where is your coherence", but I'll spell it out in plain English: the existence, or lack thereof, or the suggested deletion or lack thereof, of any other page, is completely irrelevant to whether or not this page should or should not be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence (Noun): Logical or natural connection or consistency. Another definiton - coherence: agreement, comprehensibility, concordance, congruity, connection, consistency, consonance, correspondence, intelligibility, rationality, union, unity. Marceltp86 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From where I'm standing, the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is being used by both sides (keep and delete). Also, the main reason shown for deleting the article is that the achievements are questionable in their notability. What people should consider when reading the list is that, even though some of Senna's stats are not top 10, he is high ranked in almost all of F1 stats. Isn't that a notable achievement? About the fanboy thing, I didn't nominate the fanboys, did I? What I'm trying to say is that the argument based on fanboyism will take this discussion nowhere. I think you agree with that. Finally, I don't see a problem in talking about an article I have helped to create. Even if it is the only one. After all, we don't want Wikipedia to become a Country Club, where people are judged by the number of articles they have worked in.193.194.132.70 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He may be high ranked in a lot of these F1 stats, but they are not notable stats. Most of these you will not find anywhere else; they have been contrived for the purposes of this page, which is why they are not sourced. All the notable stats can be put in the main article, the rest is stat trivia. And that goes for any F1 driver. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sense of deleting a page for ayrton because there is not a similar one for other F1 drivers? Why not creating such a page for each of the other notable drivers (how many are they?)? why is it permitted for any basketball player? Let me guess: again, someone will answer me with "otherstuffexists"... Marceltp86 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to understand is that this discussion is about this article, and when people say "other stuff exists", it means that no other article matters in this discussion. There are over 800 notable F1 drivers, who decides which get a second article and which don't? Basketball doesn't figure even slightly in this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost 800 NOTABLE F1 drivers? This is the FULL number of racers who ever participated of a Grand Prix weekend. Let's try to be a little more reasonable here... Marceltp86 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point to try to create similar pages for other notable drivers as they already have been and have been deleted as quickly as they were created because of the exact same reasons this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to believe these articles will stick this time if we recreate them. Tvx1 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a reason to believe in that: this discussion here. Marceltp86 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 800 notable F1 drivers. If they were not notable, they would not have Wikipedia articles. That much is pretty clear, I'd have thought. How do you propose to decide which drivers have a special article and which don't? Answer: none of them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (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) 01:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with a section listing the notable records for which he is the current recordholder in his main article, as has been done for Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel and Michael Schumacher. DH85868993 (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem - there are fewer and fewer records for which Senna is the current holder because of recent drivers like Schumacher and current drivers like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. It's possible that eventually many of his records will be overtaken. As each of them build longer driving careers (except for Schumacher who should probably have a SPLIT list already) articles like this might become necessary for them. Nobody seems willing or able to explain why reducing the list provided is better solved by deletion than editing. Anyone? Stalwart111 02:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has been explained and repeated multiple times. The fact that you claim that it hasn't been explained proves that you haven't read this discussion thoroughly. If we remove all the rather pointless stats from the page, the remaining few do not justify a seperate page and could easily be incorporated in his own article; which is why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place. Tvx1 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there have been vague references to "removing pointless stats" without specifying which, or why, or how the references provided aren't adequate or the manner in which WP:SPLIT doesn't apply to an article that falls neatly into the confines of that guideline. The unwillingness to address specific issues has manifested as lazy "delete because we can't be bothered to clean this up" !votes. Stalwart111 13:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to be specific, I would delete all except the following:

All-time record for wins leading throughout a Grand-Prix: 19

All-time record for consecutive poles: 8

All-time record for consecutive front row starts: 24

All-time record for seasons with the most poles: 6 (record shared with Juan Manuel Fangio)

All-time record for consecutive wins at the same Grand Prix: 5 at the Monaco Grand Prix

All-time record for total pole-positions at the same Grand Prix: 8 at the San Marino Grand Prix

All-time record for consecutive poles at the same Grand Prix: 7 at the San Marino Grand Prix

All-time record for total wins leading throughout a GP in the same season: 5 in 1988, 1989 and 1991 (shared with Clark’s five in 1963 and 1965)

Youngest to achieve 50 & 60 pole-positions

Why would I delete all the others? Because all the other achievements are either not sufficiently notable for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia (they might be fine on an F1 stats site, or an Ayrton Senna tribute site, but they don't belong on Wikipedia), or they are already listed in Senna's article or at List of Formula One driver records. With respect to your statement "Therein lies the problem - there are fewer and fewer records for which Senna is the current holder because of recent drivers like Schumacher and current drivers like Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. It's possible that eventually many of his records will be overtaken." - yeah, that's how records work. Someone holds the record, then someone else breaks the record, and then they hold the record. And for better or worse, 99% of people couldn't care less about who used to hold the record - all they care about is who holds it now. DH85868993 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, records work like that but notability doesn't (based on the principle of notability not being temporary), we record those things that made someone notable, even if those things are later done (or outdone) by others. List of career achievements by Babe Ruth is a great example because many of those records (including the most important ones listed in the lede) have since been broken. That doesn't mean we don't record them. But your list is a great start and a much, much more convincing argument than "I couldn't be bothered cleaning this up so delete it". I'd be inclined to include at least some of the items under the strangely titled Regulation Changings, at least one of which might (given the major rule-change quite possibly establishes the longer-term WP:EFFECT of that WP:EVENT) qualify as notable in its own right. I'd also be inclined to keep some of those records that he held for more than a decade (some more than 20 years) which were only overtaken (posthumously) in the 2000s like GPs led, laps led, front-row starts (+ single season record), Youngest triple-world champion, Youngest to score a Grand Slam. I'm still inclined to think that your list, plus my list, plus the ones from Marceltp86 below would be enough to justify a WP:SPLIT but at least we've moved on from using AFD as a clean-up tool. Stalwart111 01:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing. "plus my list, plus the ones from Marceltp86" is not notable, hence why a split is not justified. Like with Nigel Mansell for instance, the notable records he once held but no longer does, can be mentioned in-line in the text of Ayrton Senna. However 8 notable records do not justify a split article. Michael Schumacher has 32 notable and absolute records, and no one would argue he needs a split article. Sometimes a simple, notable, list, is all that's needed. GameLegend (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the list of records in the main article: I included all the ones we have agreed on this section and excluded the "wins for McLaren". My proposal is to maintain the "List of achievements" but I'd agree in deleting IF ONLY we created a section named "curiosities" and included it on the "complete formula one results" section, and in this new section we dedicated to include the most important records he held (the ones mentioned by Stalwart111 and a few others) as a means to show his relevance: for example, it is quite impressive that 4 of the 9 longest pole-position streaks are his, or 2 of the 5 winning streaks at the same GP, or 2 of the 3 streaks of laps led. From my point of view, it is really important (as for the two age records or the total of poles, front rows and races led) to show that either he achieved that in a fewer number of GPs or that it took a way long time for this numbers to be surpassed. Thoughts? Marceltp86 (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you don't get to set conditions, that is NOT how consensus works. Secondly, curiosities is trivia. Wikipedia does not do trivia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:LISTCRUFT. --Falcadore (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to reword records that have been perfectly worded on the List of Formula One driver records? GameLegend (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
edit: nevermind, I see you invented the 'most pole positions for a national grand prix'. I think most will agree this is not a notable record. He holds the records for 'Most pole positions at the same Grand Prix'. A specific Grand Prix, whether it just happens to be his home grand prix or not, is not notable. GameLegend (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you guys' opinions are very, very biased. One says I fantasise records; the other says i made them up. I can see very clearly now that I'm not debating with Formula 1 followers, but with guys that believe to be owners of the truth; your opinion of notability and other stuff proves that: everything aside from "most championships", "Most wins" and "Most poles" is "not notable" according to the common sense. Formula One encyclopedias do care about these records I've been mentioning. Example: http://statsf1.com/en/statistiques/pilote/pole/national.aspx. Marceltp86 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a step back and consider how wide a variety, or lack there of, of F1 articles you have been involved with, and how many we have, you might want to rethink that statement. Making such accusations to others will not help your case. GameLegend (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bit. I said fantasy record in the respect of having a fantasy football league where people make up their own football teams.
Now it may be that Senna has won more rainy races than anyone else, but it is specifically against what Wikipedia is all about if you have made those calculations yourself and that data is being published in wikipedia based on your numbers for the first time anywhere. This is the essence of Wikipedia. We state facts that have been stated and compiled by WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, not by ourselves. Wikipedia is absolutely NOT a method of self-publishing. Do you get what I am saying? --Falcadore (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you a question - using Rainy races as an example: did you count up the number of rainy races, then count up the number of races Senna won and compared it to the numbers of races other drivers have won. If the answer is yes, then you can't use it in wikipedia. If the answer is no, I got the numbers from a reliable source, then you can use it in Wikipedia. Do you understand that? --Falcadore (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, now we are somehow reaching a consensus. The list proposed by DH85868993 (an Alain Prost fan? =P) is somehow the same that is already present at the main article, removing the wins for McLaren, and including other 4 marks. I believe that we could include a few other things:

One of only three drivers to start from the front ow in every race of a season (or we may name it in another way, like 'Highest percentage of front row starts in a season') - this is present in the list of formula 1 records, as it is very hard to achieve;

All-time record for most pole-positions in a national GP: even though it may not be part of the wikipedia list of records, it is a relevant fact, and also a curious one, once every driver aims winning or setting the pole in his home race;

I believe that the lists I've produced for street circuits, rainy races and races abandoned in the lead should somehow be included, because the two first cases show his dominance, and the other points out how many times he was in a position of winning (races and even championships) but failed most of the time due to the lack of reliability in the time he raced.

What do you guys think? Marceltp86 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we include 'street circuits, rainy races and races abandoned in the lead', they need verified sources stating both its an uniqueness, no no original research, and notability. Memory is not something to base facts on, so there needs to be a factual basis that he is more successful on street circuits and rain races, and there needs to be a factual basis that he abandoned more races from the lead than any other driver (and even then, what are the benchmarks for that?). GameLegend (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have to be proven that reliable sources actually keep records specifically related to these categories. Most wins in rainy races is meaningless without knowing how many races actually were rainy. And victories on street circuits is always going to be problematic because not many people can agree on what is a street circuit. Do you count Spa, Reims, Pescara or even Nurburgring or does it have to be a mickey mouse circuit like Phoenix or Monaco. Where does Adelaide sit, part of its circuit is completely artificial and laid and dismantled before each race. So unless you can reliable define the terminology and refer it to a reliable record then no. If it is a record you';ve only compiled by yourself, then just delete it. Its your fantasy record, not an actual record. --Falcadore (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's your fantasy record". Ok, let's see things this way, then. The thing is that I wrote two sections in the article, one called "dominance" where i put the total numbers of Senna in rainy races (most poles, 2nd most wins) and I make a link for a list of these races and I even wrote three topics mentioning the discussion - using sources as the newspaper "The Times" and ESPN as a basis for saying that Senna has the highest winning percentage even though he is second in total wins. Senna is world-renowned as the rainmaster, so that should be somehow explained. Marceltp86 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that record you have compiled yourself falls afoul of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If Senna is a world renowned rainmaster, you source it and you get the source to justify why he is a world renowned rainmaster, you don't invent your own statistic to justify it. --Falcadore (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page is full of irrelevant facts, essentially everything down from few useful stats at the start is trivia. How is the knowledge that Aryton Senna set the fourth highest number of fastest laps for Lotus, or that he is "One of three drivers to set at least 5 poles in more than 1 Grand Prix event" anything more than indiscriminate information? QueenCake (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ayrton Senna - Remove the non-notable records and undo the split. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:FANCRUFT. If the question needs to be asked as to what is and is not notable, then apply reliable source reference to each record. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted that this topic has been discussed before. Talk:Ayrton Senna#Records. --Falcadore (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any specifically unique records can be mentioned in the main article, but as a whole, this article does not meet the criteria as a fork. Whether other similar articles exist or not is irrelevant - we are not discussing those articles, but this one - and this one should not be kept. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Love for Ayrton Senna, don't get me wrong, but a lot of what is listed here seems to violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. A lot of these records seem to be quite trivial and excessive. Wikipedia is not a directory, and it is not here to provide a bunch of facts for you and your sports buddies to settle a bet about who got what stat. The most important ones can be listed in the main article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 05:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the nomination and the Delete votes, there does not appear to be enough reliable secondary sourcing to prove the notability of this musician. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy D. Daugherty[edit]

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

The subject has been a recording engineer/mixer on several albums, most notably ones by 2Pac and Snoop Dog. If AllMusic.com is to be believed, he has also been a vocalist/guitarist on a couple of Christian pop albums. However, the WP article doesn't mention this at all, and I'm wondering if AllMusic is confusing him with another "Tommy Daugherty". I'm not convinced that this is sufficient to establish his own notability in the complete absence of any significant in-depth coverage of him in reliable independent sources or evidence of having won any awards. There is really nothing to base a biography of living person on. Below, I analyze the References in the latest version of the article. My own searches, revealed nothing better.

1. Biography of Michael Daugherty on Naxos Records [80] (copied from the unreferenced WP article). Gives no indication that the "Tom Daugherty (b. 1961)" simply listed as his one of his four brothers is the same person.

2. A user-generated timeline [81] authored by "facebooker 1314675108" and hosted on timetoast.com but misleadingly described in the reference as published by the "Iowa Journalism Association".

3. An IMDB listing [82] of an interview on a local public access television show in Iowa City with Daugherty and Ben Leinen (aka DJ 500Benz aka Doc Da Suess), with whom Daugherty is writing his as yet unpublished autobiography Stranded On Death Row: With 2Pac, Dr. Dre, and Snoop Dogg. (See [83] + Articles for deletion/DJ 500Benz and Articles for deletion/Trey Diggz.)

4. An article about 2Pac in XXL Magazine with a brief quote from Daugherty [84] (hosted on Scribd)

5. 6. 7. YouTube videos [85], [86], [87] of Daugherty talking about his forthcoming book and his memories of 2Pac made for various 2Pac fansites.

8. 9. 10. A private Michael Jackson fansite and two personal blogs [88], [89], [90] which simply list Daugherty's name in the credits for various albums. Note that the publisher of the latter blog is misleadingly described in the reference as "Death Row Records".

11. 12. 13. Simple credit listings [91], [92], [93] on Allmusic.com, hitmixers.com (the website of his management [94]), and artistdirect.com

Note also that he is not to be confused with TommyD, a British record producer and songwriter. Voceditenore (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article To me, the sources are journalistic in nature, clearly demonstrated by the question/answer style documentary of JMIX and others. I've sited TV Show (local yes, but still), Sony Documentaries (WORLDWIDE), All music.com credits which is valid, any many other types of documents/articles across the net. There is reliable information, and established publications (such as XXL Magazine and Sony Picture's TUPAC RESURRECTION). The deletion is highly unwarranted, and you're being very picky about the links even though when you google TD a million things come up.

Again, Mr. Daugherty was also all over wikipedia already BEFORE THIS PAGE'S CREATION. A page would help box all this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdasuess (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.226.136 (talk)

I have youtube videos of Lance Pierre and other engineers being interviewed about Tommy D as well, but I'm sure those aren't good enough either. Regardless I'm going to link one of a three part series if you have the stomach for it. www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQqKq4T01UA8&ei=G1dMUvK7MuH9iwL2mYGoBw&usg=AFQjCNGCoVwdHiAFALlGBXDRjgtG4d0s3A&sig2=-oqlmTFOw-q07yQrZBAtWA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdasuess (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have plenty of retail documentaries establishing TD as 2Pacs C.E. Most of them can even be seen on youtube, but that doesn't mean they are any less documentaries. If you would like the titles of these im willing to give them to you. "Tupac Hip Hop Genius" and "Thug Angel" for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdasuess (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.226.136 (talk)

The XXL article, Allmusic, and Resurrection. Hitmixers is not Tommy's management, as you can see WORLD'S END MANAGEMENT was his company (its in the Michael Jackson pieces I both uploaded and shared links to.) HITMIXERS was a website set up by Death Row in its later years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.226.136 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 3 October 2013‎ (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have pasted in a signature for User:Docdasuess in your first comment, I assume you are that editor and are editing while logged out. Please log in to your registered user name when commenting here and when editing articles. Please also read WP:SIGN which explains how to sign your comments properly. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observe the homepage of hitmixers.com and the list of artists it represents in the upper left hand corner. Then click on the link. That's what you used for a reference. The exact same page appears at the url http://www.tommyddaugherty.com. This is not an independent source, regardless of the url, and moreover it is simply a credit listing. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lack of significant verifiable tertiary sources seems to indicate that the subject does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. I agree with voceditenore's assessment.4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

≈ Allmusic.com is plenty verifiable. It's one of the biggest music websites on the net. It made some mistakes because theres 2 tommy ds but generally it's right. Don't believe me? Discogs.com

Now you should do your research on discogs, because it is similar to wiki, in that it has a submission process before peoples credits get APPROVED. www.discogs.com/artist/Tommy+D.+Daugherty‎ . These are not generated profiles by the sources, they are generated by Discogs.com. I find this combined with Allmusic, combined with Hitmixers (which despite it's claim, is not affiliated with TD., but may have been with Death Row) to be enough to provide the credits.

The XXL interview establishes Tommy D. at Death Row and working with Dre, (as well as album credits which I've submitted through Jpegs, although incorrectly due to my misunderstanding via the website, it's clear that Tommy D has been on alot of records)

Jmix Video Series seem to me to be good enough, who is a self described 'journalist.' Look Jmix up. The medium is video, but youtube is just the delivery. https://www.facebook.com/Jmixinsider . He runs a youtube channel that is more popular. He has interviews with Lance Pierre, and others who talk about Tommy D. for SECONDARY sources. (see: http://www.youtube.com/user/jessesurratt) The websites he produces the videos for is http://truthabouttupac.com/ & http://www.bomb1st.com/ as can be seen here: http://www.bomb1st.com/interviews/

The documentary "THUG ANGEL" retail release, can be seen here on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY4jtASsZpo Again, youtube is not the source, the documentary is, but you can see the documentary at that link. Same with Tupac Resurrection Documentary.

There's plenty to establish Tommy D, who was already listed numerously on wiki. He has over 250 credits.

Docdasuess (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

Are you saying that the subject of this article is not the Tom Daugherty who appears of the AllMusic credits for the Christian pop albums? And could you also explain why you removed my comment concerning the posts which were added here by an IP who pasted in your signature and a false time stamp? Voceditenore (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because i edited it and put a time stamp on it as u request sir.

And Tommy D's credits are on multiple Tommy D profiles on allmusic, for some reason they have listed him with more than one page. Here's part 1 of his profile: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/tommy-daugherty-mn0000934071/credits Part 2: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/tommy-d-daugherty-mn0000514853/credits and so on and so forth. Docdasuess (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

A final crux to this deletion appeal: See Tommy D on Don Kill profile on MTV WEBSITE: http://www.mtv.com/artists/don-killuminati/biography/ Docdasuess (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

2Pac Resurrection: Archive footage Tommy D gave to filmmakers for 2Pac Resurrection. From Can AM Studios: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLRQuCOiwVA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdasuess (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV "profile" is sourced from Wikipedia and clearly says so on the bottom of the page. It is not about Daugherty. It is about a 2Pac recording and merely lists Daugherty in the credits. Docdasuess, no one is questioning the fact that he has been an engineer/mixer etc. on various albums or parts of them for notable artists (although, clearly not all the credits listed for him in various sources are actually referring to this person). The question being addressed in this discussion is: In the absence of any non-trivial independent coverage of this person, e.g. newspaper or magazine articles about him (not the artists he has worked for), programs on mainstream broadcast media devoted to him (not the people he has worked for), etc. is it possible to establish his notability independent of the people he has worked for, let alone write a verifiable biography of a living person? My view is no. Others may disagree. We'll see how the discussion evolves. Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many cites confuse the Gospel TD, the Electronic TD, and the rap/funk/rock TD, the latter of which we are discussing.

Here is a source more closely to what you're looking for given you're text, in your last message. Again from Jmix. Engineer Rick Clifford, talking about Tommy D. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvXnzNxq7Lc

Also, I have a magazine from 1992 KORG MAGAZINE, which features an interview with both Keith KC Cohen and Tommy D Daugherty. I can cite it. So he has been interviewed by major publications, some of which failed to make it online, but exist nonetheless.[Special:Contributions/107.202.226.136|107.202.226.136]] (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

I looked into the Hitmixers issue. It is not Tommy's MGMT, I found it it is none other than SKIP SAYLOR's Studio home page. Skip is a studio owner in Hollywood, who has Tommy listed as an on call engineer. So the discography is written by Skip, with no connection to Tommy D, other than Tommy having worked in his studio for Skip during the Death Row Days. 107.202.226.136 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)docdausess[reply]

As I said, the identical page appears at the url http://www.tommyddaugherty.com, which is registered to Daugherty [95]. This is not an independent source, regardless of the url and regardless of who made the page, Daugherty or the studio that was employing him. Moreover, it is simply a credit listing and does nothing to establish his notability. If it has no information that isn't already covered in another reference, I suggest you remove it from the article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are referring to one of the in-house magazines of the Korg Corporation? Which one–ProView? What is the exact title of the Korg article, the name of the author, date of publication (month and year), and exact page numbers? I've underlined "exact title" because there has been a lot of misrepresentation of sources so far. What is the information in the Korg article that could be used expand the biographical information in the Wikipedia article? Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get that info to you today. I just looked at Isaac Hayes III profile, which is basically a joke. I think this has much more depth to it, and would like to have you reconsider it's deletion. 107.202.226.136 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

PROVIEW: Korg Magazine: // Summer '93 //Issue 3 // Pg 54-55 //Working Tracks With Tom Daugherty //In-Print

Good Day Sunshine // Liverpool Productions // September 1993 Edition // Issue #71 //Volume II // Charles F Rosenay // Pgs. Multiple articles //Keith Casey and Tom Daugherty "Off The Wall" // In-Print

If these In Print sources are not enough, I can make photocopies. These are articles by publications that interview or focus on Tommy outside of who he has worked with. 107.202.226.136 (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

A Picture from user Djtommyd of his article. Again as user Voceditenore as requested, this is an article about Tommy outside of who he has worked with. This seems to fit within the scope of wikipedia's guidelines. Move to keep article? Docdasuess (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

Questions: From the image User:Djtommyd has uploaded (to which incidentally, he does not own the copyright), "Working Tracks With Tom Daugherty" does not appear to be the exact title of the article itself. What is it? The other page is missing, but it appears to be something like: "something something... with Pop and R & B's Hottest Track Doctor" and appears to be about Keith Casey. Apart from a brief mention in that article "Keith leaves the technical details of his craft to sidekick Tom Daugherty", Tommy D appears only in a sidebar to the article talking about the Korg equipment he's using. The sidebar is by Daugherty, not about him. Its actual title is "Working Tracks With Wavestation A/D". Also is the exact title of the Good Day Sunshine article "Keith Casey & Tom Daugherty 'Off The Wall'"? Or is that simply your interpretation of what it is about? There have already been shenanigans in this article with what appear to be deliberately misleading references for online resources. If you are going to use offline print sources, then you must be scrupulously honest and accurate about them. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've uploaded some creative commons that I've collected with permission from the publications themselves that I think you'll find interesting. Great article. I appreciate you going for accuracy. I'm new to wikipedia but I would love advice on how to post more to establish the page. Thank you. Djtommyd (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Djtommyd — Djtommyd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, I imagine you would. Have you read WP:Autobiography? Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not writing anything on my bio. Just uploading tools so others can meet wikipedia's guidelines Djtommyd (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)docdsuess[reply]

Having an obvious associate of yours [96] write it is tantamount to the same thing. I suggest you both read that article as well as WP:Conflict of interest. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has worked on many significant albums, and turns up many hits on both GoogleNews archive, and GoogleBooks. STATic message me! 14:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have three keeps and one delete. I move to take the deletion notice off. Korg magazine establishes Tommy in a singular way, paired with the Keith Casey Cohen piece, now cited on the wiki page. Combined with all the other sources, I feel like we have a good base for the article. There's a lot of records with his name. Any disagreements? 107.202.226.136 (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

Yes, I disagree. Only one "Keep" is from an editor without a conflict of interest. The other two are by the article's subject and you, his associate. There are two "Deletes", mine as nominator and one other from a non-involved long-term editor. You don't "vote" to close an AfD, and it will not be decided by a "vote" either. It will be closed by an administrator based on the arguments presented and his/her assessment of the consensus. Docdasuess, surely you must know that by now. This is the third AfD you have been involved in (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ 500Benz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trey Diggz). Also the Korg reference you have added has a clearly spurious and misleading title, which I am about to correct. It is a side bar in an article about another engineer in the in-house magazine of Korg Corporation. The sidebar is by Tommy D in which extols the virtues of Korg's equipment, not about him. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also will you please answer my question above concerning the exact article title in the Beatles fanzine Good Day Sunshine? Is it really "Keith Casey & Tom Daugherty 'Off The Wall'"? Or is that simply your interpretation of what it is about? You have already added several references to the article with what appear to be deliberately misleading descriptions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My two deletions in the past were valid and i did not fight them once they were deleted. This one clearly has some validity. As far as my vote not counting thats ridiculous. I'm not an associate of Tommy D. Just a journalist typing this up. The Korg Magazine is part of a larger piece with both Tommy and Keith which if I must I can dig up the other half. Clearly the references are pointing in one direction and follow the guidelins you've suggested. I'd urge you to reconsider. You're being awful nit-picky when there is a tundra of material to go off of. It's 3 to 1 right now, and let any unaccounted for party speak for themselves on here. 107.202.226.136 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

STATicVerseatide seem to be a decorated authority on hip hop if you take a look at his profile. Again, I implore you to let any unaccounted for party speak up if someone else disagrees. 107.202.226.136 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

Delete Too many walls of text posted above by persons apparently connected to the subject of the article. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Sources should be reliable and independent of the article subject. Working on some notable project does not automatically make one notable, since notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxLS58TOLdU 107.202.226.136 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)docdasuess[reply]

If you look at Dave Aron's page Dave Aron has myspace and all music as his sources, and his page is still active. I think this page has as much credibility. 107.202.226.136 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)docdausess[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) 01:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re the latest comment from User:Docdasuess (who for some reason refuses to log into his account when contributing here [97]). Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. That is not a valid argument for keeping this article. The Dave Aron article is utterly dire in terms of its style, tone, and poor referencing. However, there are plenty of reliable independent sources out there (mainstream news media as well as specialised press like Jazz Times, Billboard, CMJ New Music Monthly), which attest to his notability and can be easily added to the article. I know because I have subscriptions to news archives, and I checked them, as I did for Daugherty before filing this AfD. But again, you keep coming up with more YouTube videos produced for 2Pac fansites and are trying to assert that the article's subject is notable because he worked for notable people.

In my view, the only two references that might conceivably attest to his notability were added by me—this one and this one. But even here, the first is an article in a local paper from 1992 about how he had gone to Hollywood, found work as a synthesizer technician, and now "mingles with stars". The second is a book about Dr. Dre briefly quoting Daugherty and identifying him as the engineer who worked on All Eyez on Me. It's possible that some uninvolved editors might consider this + the credits enough, and I welcome the re-listing of this debate. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion. It has been pointed out that the ANYBIO criteria is an indication of possible notability, not a guarantee of it - and in this case, there is insufficient evidence beyond the Order of Canada to show that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Lester Shaw[edit]

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

Given the accomplishments, I don't think we should accept the Order of Canada as indicating the presumption of notability, (It's the 2nd highest, not the highest civilian award--The Order of Merit is the highest) The Order of Canada citation is in full "He has devoted many years to education, the community and environmental causes. His promotion of environmental awareness has resulted in numerous educational programmes for children and adults, including the establishment of the McQueen Lake Environmental Study Centre near Kamloops, B.C., and in his being named Conservationist of the Year by the B.C. Wildlife Federation." His book, privately published, is in exactly one library a/c WorldCat. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His accomplishments just aren't significant enough. Only local sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable doer of good. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are not limited to only the highest, ANYBIO says "a well-known and significant award or honor", of which Order of Canada clearly is. Also consider that the next highest award is the Order of Merit of which only 24 living people are allowed to have any time, it's too extreme to set the bar of notability to only 24 living Canadians. But he's done more, "Conservationist of the Year by the B.C. Wildlife Federation", two Jubilee medals. Awards and medals are signifiers of someone who has done things that are considered notable and worthy of notice. He also has two excellent GNG sources.[98][99] True they are local but conservationists are often local by the nature of conservation, the awards are national recognition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2013 (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) 01:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is decidedly local, including the "InFocus" source. I don't think the B.C. Wildlife Federation's award confers much. I would say the Order of Canada award is the only truly significant feature here, so I would say he is only significantly known for a single event. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are not an event. See WP:ANYBIO "a well-known and significant award or honor". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking "event" in the widest possible sense here: a thing that happens at all, that link does not seem to say anything about a technical definition of "event". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As noted, the coverage is not very deep and very local. WP:ANYBIO only states that a person is *likely* to be notable if the person has received a well-known award. Outside of the award (of which there have been 5,837 given out), there just isn't much that otherwise would get the individual over the notability threshold. There has to be more coverage than just the fact that an award was given. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5,837 "including scientists, musicians, politicians, artists, athletes, business people, television and film stars, benefactors, and others." How many conservationists receive it? And if we had 5,837 bio articles for each winner it wouldn't be such a bad thing, "a well-known and significant award or honour" is one of the main criteria Wikipedia uses for inclusion. This is basically the highest award civilians can get in Canada (the highest is limited to only 24 living people so sort of ridiculous to compare). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest re-reading the criteria. It's one of a number of additional criteria, not part of WP:BASIC and does not guarantee inclusion. Considering the *only* thing particular notable is being one of thousands of people to win an award, the individual in question doesn't meet general notability guidelines. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The award is not the only thing. The sources discuss other notable achievements including GNG coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not at all in agreement that an Order of Canada winner doesn't meet constitute "a well-known and significant award or hono(u)r," which it most surely is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. A "well-known and significant award or hono(u)r" simply makes it *likely* that the person is notable enough for inclusion. In this case, there's nothing there, there. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria and explicitly states that it's not a guarantee for inclusion. Given that there's nothing of real significance outside of the award, Shaw belong on a list of Order of Canada recipients, not in an individual article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that discuss the topic per WP:GNG. If all we had was a list of winners of the award and nothing else your position would make sense, but we have more than that, including other sources that discuss his achievements for which he won the award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been said here that Mr. Shaw should be listed as an Order of Canada recipient, but that he doesn't deserve an entry in Wikipedia. Well, you can't have one without the other. The list of recipients is a collection of Wiki entries of people. If you delete Mr. Shaw, then he can't be in the list. If you delete his entry, then you should comb through the other CM recipients. Francis Buckley would, therefore, be another CM recipient who should be deleted. There are over 800 pages which may be full of CM recipients who might also be deleted. I am the originator of the entry for Mr. Shaw. I agree that Mr. Shaw has had the most impact in British Columbia. I believe that he would still warrant an entry, even if he didn't get the Order of Canada, based on his life's work. Merville (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these arguments have anything to do with policy. Scads of lists of a notable award have non-notable names on the list - and it's not an accident, it's explicitly provided for in WP:STANDALONE. There's no criteria that a notable list can only list wiki entries of people. And once again, WP:ANYBIO explicitly states that a person who wins a notable award is only likely to be notable and still needs to be notable under WP:GNG. If he's notable (deserves is irrelevant here - a wikipedia article is not an award) for his life's work, than his life's work would have significant coverage in notable, independent sources. What people have found (and I'm not finding anymore) is a handful of local pieces. Deleting this non-notable biography has exactly zero impact on any other person that won the Order of Canada - if they're notable otherwise they stay, if they're not, they don't, but that was already the case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (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) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the home is of local rather than national/international interest, and so does not meet the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Farm[edit]

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

Non-notable home. Of local interest only. Not a listed historic place. Not covered significantly in any architectural sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (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) 01:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LOCAL. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 02:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lakewood, NY --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep I'm still working on this page and have not yet incorporated the bulk of the information. The Green Farm has appeared in many books about the history of Lakewood, and information can be found on many of the websites. There is rich history to the establishment. I believe the page should not be deleted, but perhaps it could be merged elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliRCzar (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable historical structure, has some coverage in sources which I added to the article. Wincent77 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The coverage added by Wincent amounts to local interest only:
  - a note in the Chataquan News (the local newspaper for the Chataqua neighbohood) of a fire in the building;
  - an entry in a travel guide about the area;
  - a note in The Buffalo News (also a local newspaper; Lakewood falls into local coverage area of the Buffalo daily) that the building has received zoning approval for conversion to a B&B
None of this amounts to significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 9 October 2013 (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) 01:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants. (And, for good measure, turned into a protected redirect this time). Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hantz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested Prod. Article was nominated THREE times and all three times there was consensus to merge or redirect the article. Now the article was resurrected with the same information on his survivor performance. N92413 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per previous AFDs consensus. N92413 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Salt per nom. Enough, they only have notability for one thing. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per other AFD results. 174.226.192.151 (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — 174.226.192.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. Notable only for Survivor performances and nothing else. 12.196.0.56 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think that this article should definitely be kept. Hantz is not only noteworthy for his actual appearances on Survivor, but also for other controversies related to the show. He is also noteworthy for being on the show Flipped Off. Even if Hantz really were noteworthy only for his Survivor appearances, there are plenty of other Survivor contestants who have their own articles but are not really noteworthy for anything otherwise (Tom Westman, Cirie Fields, Kim Spradlin, etc.). Additionally, I have added several reliable sources to the article and made some major improvements and updates to it over the last few weeks. I understand that it still needs some improvements, but it is now by-far better than it was before. UPDATE: Article is now fully sourced with reliable sources, up-to-date, and well-written (compare before I improved it to the current revision). There is really no reason to delete this article. 108.95.130.150 (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per consensus in previous AFDs. 64.134.70.93 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC) — 64.134.70.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - In addition to survivor, he then went on to flipping houses on TV. See [100], and [101]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – if you look at Category:Survivor contestants there are currently over 100 total articles on Survivor contestants. Hantz is more famous/notorious than all but a handful of them, being not only the greatest villain the show has seen but also an innovator of several strategies and tactics. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2013 (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) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it might have gone through three prior AFDs, it also went through a subsequent DRV in March of this year (which is noted on the article talk page) which permitted recreation. The article was subsequently unprotected and recreated. Calling for prior AFDs to be recognised and enforced but a newer DRV to be ignored seems a bit silly. It was recreated on the basis of his additional television work. Any reason to think consensus has changed since March? Stalwart111 07:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reality show contestant who does not meet the general notability guidelines. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is available in the references list and the coverage goes beyond one event. Stalwart111 22:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per AFDs in the past. Has semi-notability in the show, and appears in other reality shows. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're ignoring the 6-month-old consensus from DRV to impose a two-year-old consensus from AFDs conducted before additional material became available? Stalwart111 04:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stalwart111. I've looked at the older AFDs and the arguments used there to support deletion simply aren't valid anymore.108.95.130.150 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He still does not pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain this position relative to the sources that are in the article? Articles like this, and this are significant coverage with Russell Hantz as the primary subject. I could understand an argument of WP:BLP1E, but there is definitely significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And even the one event issue can be overcome if we see continued coverage, and in the case of Hantz, he is one of the most notorious villains of Survivor, and has gone on to star in his own house flipping show (see [102]). See this article published just yesterday naming Russell's blindside of Tyson as one of the top 5 powerplays of Survivor which shows that coverage of Russell continuess. beyond the time period of his play on Survivor. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Whpq. There are plenty of reliable sources on him. He was even nominated for a Teen Choice Award in 2010 because of his outstanding performance on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains (see [103]) Also, in case no one saw my updates above, I have sourced ALL the material in this article and removed anything that couldn't be verified. That should be a good enough reason to keep the article: Hantz has media coverage from plenty of credible sources. 108.95.130.150 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, normally I'd say WP:ENTREPRENEUR and point out that game show contestants generally aren't notable, but in this case Hantz seems to have stretched out his time in the public eye beyond the usual fifteen minutes of fame. Therefore, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 17 October 2013 (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) 00:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If you own and produce a TV show, you're likely notable. If you're only some cunning reality TV contestant fans talk about on twitter all the time then article eligibility remains questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.101.201 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Flipped Off. The show itself has weak notability. 174.254.179.169 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Guarino[edit]

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

Unable to verify certain claims, citations do not reflect a number of accomplishments, number of citations (same one used multiple times) behind firewall, need verification. Author has already removed some challenged items, also self-removed Speedy Deletion tag. Requesting fuller review since the content is not able to be fully verified. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the articles creator and I disagree with the above comments. I believe the article should be kept because it's a work in progress started only today and getting better by the day. I do appreciate the two specific recommendations by Loriendrew,I agreed with him and removed them as you can see from the talk section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philip_Guarino I began this morning with 19 references and now I have well over 19. As you can see from the edit process, I'm continuing to edit it often as I find more references. I had originally created this article for fun with no references so that is why I'm working backwards and filling in the references for the information I've already learned. I want this to become a great and well documented article so I welcome all constructive criticism and will implement it immediately. With sincere thanks and appreciation, Dr. B. Jones (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Jones, it might help if you could tell us what prompted you to write the article in the first place. From what I can tell, it is your only contribution to Wikipedia to date. While that's not a problem, per se, and most people will be happy to walk you through the process (WP:AGF), if you came here to write an article about someone you knew personally, that sort of thing is generally discouraged (you claim the photo of him is your own work so I'm assuming you knew the subject). I'm not sufficiently familiar with the political offices involved to determine if any of the "accomplishments" are significant enough to allow the subject to meet our notability guidelines. There are lots of passing mentions but I'm not seeing a lot of significant coverage so meeting the general notability guidelines might be a struggle. So we would need to establish whether any of those achievements allow him to meet our other notability guidelines. I suppose the short version is: what is it that you claim the subject is notable for? Stalwart111 10:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the notability guidelines. I would answer his significance is, if you follow the references that already exist: 1) He worked for 4 Presidents, 2) He founded an Order of the Knights Templar in the US, 3) Some sources claimed he was the contact from Licio Gelli and the P2 Masonic Lodge in Italy to President George H.W. Bush. 4) For the 61 years he was in Washington, he was in many prominent roles in politics. 5) Contrary to a claim above, I've found many references, news reports, magazine articles, and mentions of Philip Guarino in both Political material and books related to the Knights Templar. I would be surprised if those reasons don't rise to being significant enough for a mention in Wikipedia. Dr. B. Jones (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're the current Grand Prior of the order he founded, that would most certainly be considered a conflict of interest. I've also got some concerns about WP:WEIGHT issues in the article itself which ignores some potentially controversial reports in reliable sources in order to source particular (and fairly mundane) facts. Stalwart111 10:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I'm afraid I've just had to tag it again for speedy deletion - 90% of the content is a word-for-word copy of his biography at the website of the order he founded - www.theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino/. Stalwart111 10:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Stalwart111: there is no copywrite infringement as I wrote the article you're referring to, please go to that link www.theknightstemplar.org/philip-guarino/and now see the note I have just added on top: "Please Note: This history page is a work in progress as I'm verifying references. I have been asked to write a history of Philip Guarino by Grand Prior Mark Warren. - Dr. Jones" I was approached by their Grand Prior, Mark Warren, to write a historically accurate version of their Founder. That is 100% my material and a photo that their Grand Prior owns of Philip Guarino. Now I'm posting it here and working backwards to find all my references that I used for the original article. I don't believe this is any conflict of interest, my motivation is that I've already done the work there, so if I'm given time to retrace my references, I'm 100% confident that I can add them here. If you allow me two more days to find the references that I used for my original article, I'm confident that I will find them. Dr. B. Jones (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I had originally closed the discussion after deleting the article as G12 with the following closing comment:

The result was speedy delete. The notice at the top of the page at thenightstemplar.org is not a sufficient release for Wikipedia purposes. The article can be recreated with sufficient references when/if Dr. B. Jones (t c) provides a valid license or release of rights. —Darkwind (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, large portions of the text form the article were posted at the URL above, with an insufficient rights release (and a Copyright 2013 all rights reserved tag at the bottom). The copyright notice has now been replaced with a "copyleft" notice stating "Copyleft Free To Use License: The content of this website is free to use for your personal and commercial projects." I'm willing to accept that as a sufficient release for now, which places the article back under the purview of this AfD discussion. I've reopened and relisted the discussion to give a fair full-length discussion period. —Darkwind (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you a big thanks Darkwind for undeleting, now I was able to copy the project and save it to my computer and not lose hours of my life. Please, if you would, send this article to my sandbox as I learned the following things that I will now change: 1) I will add all of the missing references 2) Make the article more objective. An editor correctly pointed out that Wikipedia doesn't want rose colored articles that make Philip look too good. I will add more discussion on the claims that he had P2 connections, why he resigned from the George H.W. Bush Campaign, etc. 3) I will make the article smaller and more to the point. Please understand that I'm new here. This was my first attempt at a Wikipedia Article and I didn't understand that this process should have happened in my sandbox until all my references were inserted. However, I would like a little more feedback on "Notability" please. Could each editor please weigh in a "Yay" or "Nay" if Philip is "Notable" enough for Wikipedia? Dr. B. Jones (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - While the article was deleted there was an ongoing conversation with the article creator at User talk:Dr. B. Jones#Re: Philip Guarino. His comments above are a response to some of the points made there. ~~Until the substantive queries there are answered, I remain in favour of deletion, having not yet been convinced the subject is notable (so that's a "Nay" from me for now)~~. Stalwart111 02:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for weighing in Stalwart. And yes, he's 100% correct, my comments above are from discussion with Stalwart111. May I editorialize for a moment? Stalwart didn't just shoot down my article like 99% of Editors do, he took the time to teach me what is wrong with the article and what could be done to fix it in a kind way. Therefore, he has my thanks, respect, and admiration. If more Editors took his tact with first timers, Wikipedia would be changed for the better. Dr. B. Jones (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - having had a few days to think about it and having contributed to the article itself, there are a couple of points that struck me that I previously hadn't considered. The subject is briefly mentioned in both an LA Times article and a New York Times article. While those wouldn't likely be considered "significant coverage", both reference an earlier 1988 article from the Washington Jewish Week which both suggest was focused on the subject and another individual. Sources need not be online so we don't require a copy of the article itself and the article's existence is verified by those two papers. It was obviously significant enough so that once published, the article was then referenced in two major metropolitan papers and forced a number of people to resign from George H. W. Bush's campaign committee. Accurately or inaccurately, other books suggest he played an important role in events relating to both Michele Sindona and Licio Gelli and is accused of being a conduit between a US President and the alleged assassins of a foreign leader. Whether those allegations are true or not, they caused him to be the subject of at least some coverage. I think there is a case to be made that his involvement in the political machinations of the 70s and 80s might be sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO and the coverage might almost be sufficient for him to pass WP:GNG. Stalwart111 00:47, 8 October 2013 (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) 00:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stalwart111 but this article needs lots of work. It currently says he was born in Sicily and died in 2006. Two obituaries say he died in 1993 and one of those says he was born in West Winfield, Pennsylvania. He is described as a Catholic priest but I found an obituary of a long time wife. Because of his perceived involvement in shadowy activities, reliability of the sourcing must be evaluated carefully. I believe that some of the biographical information is confused with that of his associate Michele Sindona. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The focus of my little clean up was on those sources that I thought might confer some notability. Haven't gone into the basic biographical stuff but it certainly does need more work if it is kept. Stalwart111 02:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article, correcting glaring errors and adding references. I have also tagged the photo as a possible copyvio. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Forgotten Realms. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sildëyuir[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Forgotten Realms. BOZ (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to some fansite that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, the content is only primary non independent sources and so it fails WP:GNG leaving the options of : merge, redirect or delete. Given the state of the suggested merge target - already bloated with in universe primary sourced trivia, a merge would seem to be merely an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another and not very valuable to the project. If there can be shown evidence that this is a likely search term (given the úmláúts, it seems únlikély), a redirect might be appropriate, but given the history of redirects being indiscriminately restored for these types of articles without additional third party sourcing, the redirect would need to be locked. delete is also acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Article is not based on independent sourcing. It's permissible to use primary and licensed sources for articles, but it is not permitted to base articles upon them.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Forgotten Realms. The info is verifiable in authoritative sources and the topic is a reasonable search term. Per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable topics is preferable to deletion and WP:ATD-M states Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. Difficulty in maintaining a redirect is an editor problem and not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. --Mark viking (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2013 (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, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold - I ask that this page be held off from being merged by the closer so that I may do the necessary tasks rather than having to work twice of three times as hard to fix a mergeless redirect that would otherwise be performed. A widescale and large clean up operation is underway as noted by this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2013 (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) 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Mark viking and BOZ. As explained, this is unsuitable for a standalone article, however as a line in the target article would be logical, and redirects are cheap. Redirects can also easily be salted, "the redirect would need protection" isn't a reason to delete instead of redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

دکتر علیرضا فيض[edit]

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

Non English language, unsourced, no evidence of notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:the article has been moved to Ali Faiz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commen There seems to be an English translation, though even then it is a wall of text, barely intelligible, full of boasts and peacock terms, with no inline citations to reliable sources as needed to verify the claims and demonstrate notability. There seems to be a claim of notability, "nearly 35 years in the Department of management Faculty of Theology, jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law at Tehran University was responsible., and as a professor in the country in 1360 and 1370 were selected in 1382, as a permanent figure in the field of Islamic law and jurisprudence were selected " The years stated must be converted to CE so that the non-Muslim reader has a clue as to whether this all happened in the middle ages (1300s as stated) or in current times. If the subject were in fact a full professor at Tehran University for 35 years or whatever, that would be a good start toward establishing notability. If he were a mere lecturer or adjunct then much more would be needed. Edison (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an English translation because I pasted one in from Google.

"Professor held tenure for a fairly long period" doesn't go anywhere to meeting our standard for academic notability, unless we also have sourced indications that they achieved something or were recognised during this tenure. Just sitting in the professorial chair doesn't cut it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says, surprisingly,that professors can be notable without otherwise satisfying WP:BIO if they satsify any one of several qualifications specific to professors, such as having a named chair, being a "distinguished professor," and other shorts to notability. Perhaps someone who understands Farsi can search for reliable sources in that language. Edison (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this academic passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Not sure why this needs AFD non-English articles are automatically deleted or moved to a different wiki if not translated (machine translation doesn't count) within 14 days. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this will be deleted in 7 days. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

delete as unsalvageable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Tried to salvage it anyway, despite Barney the barney barney's sound advice. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review After Cleanup The foreign language, dead end, section, category and basic formatting issues have been fixed. The run on sentences and lack of formatted citations remain. Close enough? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not close enough for me. There are no sources, let alone independent ones. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No sources, not even ones in Persian. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. (however, even with sources would require and entire re-write.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not shown. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duchamp (clothing)[edit]

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

Refused PROD, "deserves an afd at least", so I'm giving it one.

Notability: 5 years and still not a single independent source. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough, I search google books for duchamp+cufflinks, and got several hits for fashion magazines of 1990s, etc. --Soman (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2013
(edit conflict) Keep - The sources added to the article by the guy who declined the PROD seem to prove notability, and they are independent sources, yes. T C N7JM 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the page originally was longer, and seemed to have been added by a wikipedian with interest in fashion who then went on to other things, but some IP anons with likely-to-my-eyes WP:COI difficulties started adding WP:SPIP everywhere. User:Racconish performed some de-peacocking for them in 2010, but they failed to take the hint, and in 2011 put in a ton more advertising-copy, after which Racconish got frustrated and slashed the article down to a single sentence. I'm willing to walk the anons through the WP:N and WP:V and WP:COI minefield, so that the article can have the Notable stuff, and leave out the advertising fluff. But it does seem to not have any editors who are not suffering from WP:COI... is there a place one might locate a neutral wikipedia editor interested in the men's boutique fashion industry? Maybe we can interest them in putting the article on their watchlist, to help nip any promotional-content in the bud in the future. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added copy and refs. Would be happy to help too. — Racconish^Tk 10:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page content has been significantly restored by User:Racconish (well done). No response from anon editors yet, so it is unclear whether they have yet had the relevant wikipedia policies explained to them; suggest folks interested in keeping this article reliable add it to their watchlists, and if an anon shows up to make 'constructive' edits without much clue about wiki-policies, please send them over to WP:TEAHOUSE or maybe WP:RETENTION so that somebody can walk them through how to use talkpages if they have WP:COI inherently, what WP:RS means, and so on. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the name of the company might now officially be Duchamp London, which methinks was changed around the time of a change in ownership. If we can confirm this name-change is the case, probably the article will need to be moved to Duchamp London (clothing), with a redirect thereto replacing the current Duchamp (clothing), is this right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me there is a holding company, Duchamp Holdings Limited, with two subsidiaries, Duchamp Limited (wholesale) and Duchamp Retail Limited (retail). — Racconish^Tk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [104], [105], [106]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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