Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 26

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 25 August	27 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete as obvious hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Brackenese

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

Knowledge is not for made-up stuff. Google returns nothing reliable, and the provided sources show no indication of credibility or notability. --Σ _contribs 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete It's either a hoax or something just made up one day. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Not one of the cited "sources" even mentions the word "Brackenese". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Only four results in Google search. Also per Cullen Sp33dyphil 06:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Sp33dyphil 06:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
20-Mule-Team Delete: Definitely a WP:BULLSHIT call, as well as a hoax. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 16:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Hancox

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability standards. Awards mentioned are student awards, and press seems to be of the advance pr type. LadyofShalott 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Not yet notable. If his second film (which sounds interesting) brings him in-depth coverage in reliable sources when it's released, I will not oppose recreation. Not now, though. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sp33dyphil 07:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As per above, has not yet made any films notable enough for him to have an article. ItsZippy (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jose Perez (American football)

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

Subject was just cut today by the Miami Dolphins and fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Giants27(T|C) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Have not evaluated to decide whether it's enough, but he has received some non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. See, e.g., The Republic, Sun Sentinel, Sun Sentinel (same as 1 but different paper), San Diego Union-Tribune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)

The first three are the same story... Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep I like that WP:NSPORTS was corrected so that preseason football games don't count towards automatic notability. He also doesn't have an MLB appearance, so he doesn't meet notability that way. However, I feel that the write ups on him are enough to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Weak delete~~ – Even though the first three articles are the same, the base article definitely counts toward notability. The San Diego Union-Tribune article seems to be as much about the team's defense than about Perez himself, as he isn't the only player it seems to be about. I'm not quite convinced yet that this meets WP:GNG; it's the eqivalent of having 1½ articles about him. If another article could be found about Perez in particular, I'd lean toward keeping this, but I couldn't find anything on top of the sources mentioned above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Switching to weak keep. The amount of coverage found down there is impressive, and several of the articles are clearly about Perez. The only caveat I'd mention is that the new stories are all locally based sources from the San Diego area. Still, I now think there's just enough on this player to squeeze past GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. After researching a bit more, there appears to be enough non-trivial coverage to support a stand-alone article under WP:GNG. His college football career at SDSU as well as his unusual journey from professional baseball to college football generated sufficient coverage to satisfy notability standards. The August 2011 article from the Sun-Sentinel about Perez's career path was sufficiently interesting that it was picked up and reprinted in newspapers across the country. Here are some of the articles I found that appear to support a finding of notability: (1) "Jose Perez goes from Yankee pinstripes to Dolphins aqua and orange", Sun Sentinel, August 10, 2011; (2) same article as (1), published by The Republic in Indiana, August 2011, (3) same article as (1), published by the Georgia News, August 2011, (4) same article as (1) available on the McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, August 2011, (5) "Corner could be the place for Perez," The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 19, 2009, (6) "Secondary route is just fine for ex-baseball player Perez," North County Times, October 23, 2010, (7) "Perez at Home in Aztec Secondary," La Prensa San Diego, October 3, 2008, (8) "Oceanside standout seems to be favoring pin stripes: Perez may go with Yanks, not Aztecs football," The San Diego Union-Tribune, June 6, 2003, (9) "Perez commits to Aztecs," The San Diego Union-Tribune, November 6, 2002, (10) "Oceanside's Perez switches gears, sports," North County Times, August 18, 2006, (11) "Aztecs 1-on-1 With Jose Perez"(video), 619 Sports, August 28, 2010, (12) "SDSU's Perez likely to miss Utah game," San Diego Union-Tribune, November 16, 2010 ; (13) "Perez Picked to Start at Corner for Aztecs," La Prensa San Diego, September 4, 2009, (14) "SDSU turns corner with McFadden, Perez combo," The San Diego Union-Tribune, November 6, 2010, (15) "Yeatman, Perez agree to deals," North County Times, July 26, 2011, (16) Perez stars for Oceanside in both football, baseball" (photo), North County Times, October 22, 2002. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep After I added some of Cbl62's sources to the article and also looking for more sources myself, I am mildly concerned that we are limited to 4 sources: the nice August 10, 2010 writeup, the La Prensa San Diego article, and coverage from the San Diego newspapers The San Diego Union-Tribune and North County Times. I'm counting sources based on GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The concern is any potential bias of the limited sources are magnified by its overuse in the article. Neutrality is a big reason multiple non-trivial sources are needed so viewpoints can be balanced. Still, his talent in two sports and his playing multiple positions in football is notable. I will presume that other sources can eventually be found to meet GNG, but have no prejudice for future AfD nominations if he never plays professionally and additional sources are not identified. —Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG in lieu of the neutered WP:NSPORTS. Agent Vodello 15:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Jones (American football)

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

Subject was just cut today by the Miami Dolphins and fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Giants27(T|C) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. After searching, I don't find any evidence of significant, non-trivial coverage of Jones' collegiate career either. Appears therefore to fail both WP:GNG and SP:ATH. Willing to reconsider if someone can show that there's non-trivial coverage out there. Cbl62 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH, and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG for this WP:Run-of-the-mill college player who does meet WP:NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Not enough time was given to allow original creator/subsequent editors to add credible third-party sources. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.178.66.175 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Folkdirect.com

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

Seems to be a new social networking website with limited reliable sources detailing it. The tone of the article is obviously promotional but that can be fixed through the course of normal editing. What cannot be fixed is the lack of sourcing. Protonk (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete - unless solid sources are suddenly found. What we've got is a single-screen review on the HuffPost, some press releases and self-praise, a review on a glorified blog calling itself a magazine, and another review on a tech blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Lacks significant coverage so fails WP:GNG Mt king 07:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic, not real references mostly primary references CapMan07008 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator and OrangeMike. Article was obviously created by a single purpose account to stimulate traffic, and although the tone could be fixed, the site is too new to have accumulated any in-depth reliable sources and fails criteria for websites and organisations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Direct Care Group

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - unambiguous advertisement or promotion. No notability and two very thin refs that may be reportage of press releases. Velella 22:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I couldn't find anything else aside from those two sources that could support this article.SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Article claims that the model is unique, yet similar approaches are widespread elsewhere, e.g. here in the UK. JFW | T@lk 08:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - According to the article, the "company partners with doctors to take ownership of practices" - there must be few if any (none I can think of) instances where a company directly owns a concierge medicine practice. Also added another link (increasing to 3) to demonstrate notability. 14:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.64.56 (talk) — 98.238.64.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The article appears to be written in a relatively neutral tone and is backed by three independent references. Further supporting notability is the uniqueness of the business in that while physicians, hospitals, or other health care professionals may own and operate traditional medical practices, the concept of a non-medical business operating a concierge practice is unique. I'm sure there are operational differences that make this even more unique and I would open this up to more community input rather than a deletion. BocceBrent (talk) - 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I don't see three independent references in the article. What I see as of this version are:
1. The website of Society of Direct Care Medicine which is not independent as it clearly states "The Florida Research Partnership (FRP) is a joint effort between the Society and Direct Care Group"
2. A Forbes article about concierge health care which makes no mention of the Direct Care Group that I was able to find.
3. A blog post from Redux Group, a business consulting firm does not constitute a reliable source
4. A press release rehash from Apcovat; press releases aren't independent
5. An American Medical News article about concierge health care that does not mention the Direct Care Group.

So I see nothing in the existing references that support Direct Care Group meeting Knowledge's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with Whpq's categorization of the sources. Because notability is not temporary, a business needs to have some sort of significant effects on history, technology, or culture before becoming an appropriate subject for a stand alone article. No case for long term significance is made here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of notability doesn't match Knowledge's: "an organization...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Doesn't say it has to have significant effects on history, technology, or culture. ɳorɑfʈ 05:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

While press releases are not independent, a press release that has been reported on by an independent media source is (even if the press release is copied verbatim), because the information contained in it has passed through independent editorial review. Independent editorial review is the very definition of what makes something a third-party source. However, upon closer inspection of Apcovat, it doesn't appear to be professional news anyway, so in this case, the point may be mute. ɳorɑfʈ 03:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Press releases are never considered independent sources, especially if they are copied verbatim by an independent media source. There is no indication that independent media sources fact check press releases. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Whpq (talk · contribs)'s analysis of the sources. I have scrolled through Google News Archive and have been unable to find any third-party reliable sources. Because this company fails Knowledge:Notability, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Courcelles 19:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Blandon

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

Does not meet notability guidelines - cannot find reliable third-party sources. ItsZippy (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep The article makes a strong assertion of notability, and a Google News Archive search shows that many Spanish language sources exist. I can't evaluate these sources very well since my ability to read Spanish is poor at best. However, the presumption that good sources exist in Spanish is high, unless the nominator claims that the article is a hoax. Please remember that this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - A Google news result has lots of Roberto Blandons in the result which are spurious, but picking through Spansih language ones turns up stuff like this short article which indicates he is acting in a soap opera with high ratings. Note that he is the primary subject of this article. That's the best I could make of it based on machine translation. There's more and somebody proficient in Spanish could make his or her way through the material much better. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The news results are indeed very good in terms of notability. These two focus directly on him, and these on some of his works, but the mention is more than passing — frankie (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep While the nominator failed to find sources, others have easily done so. Subject meets WP:ENT, WP:GNG and thus WP:BIO. Schmidt, 07:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. We seem to be spending a lot of time comparing the Maccibah Gamse and the Olympics, but, at the end of the day, the consensus is that these articles here are not notable. Courcelles 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Australia Maccabiah rugby union team

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete All teams are non-notable. Fails WP:RU/N and WP:GNG Bob247 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Delete all after merging in the team squads (as collapsible boxes) into the Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games. A related deletion discussion can be found at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – team squads. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think you're confused about this, since these are articles about the teams who have been competing in the Maccabiah since the early 1980s, rather than just the 2009 squads.

The only mergable information is for 2009, the rest of the years are all empty. If someone wants to add the earlier team squads they can also be added to the appropriate Rugby union at the ???? Maccabiah Games article. They are currently all stubs and should be fleshed out first before starting on content forks. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also why are we using search engines to find sources? Some of us actually use libraries! You'll find more information about this in library books than on Google, which doesn't pass muster as an academic tool.-MacRusgail (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. This should be listed on the Israel, RU and Jewish wikiprojects.

Care to provide any significant coverage that you found in a library? Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I already have added references on various articles related to Jewish rugby and rugby players from Encyclopedia Judaica etc. And it takes time. (I have to wait at least two/three hours for the thing to be delivered.) I just don't think it's appropriate to be using a commercial search engine as an academic resource. This is what makes Knowledge a standing joke in many circles, and makes us susceptible to WP:LINKROT. But if you're talking on a weblink basis, the UK article has a number of refs on it of varying quality. The US article is even more linked (or was, maybe dead links are in there).--MacRusgail (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. It also doesn't help that my Hebrew is minimal, and I don't have any Jewish background.

Keep - The Maccabiah is an international tournament of Jewish athletes, and some fairly notable rugby union players have been part of these teams.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC) p.s. Have listed it on Jewish and Israel del sort. p.p.s. WP:RU/N is undergoing discussion over on WP:RU, and I believe this is premature.
- Which fairly notable rugby union players have played at the Maccabiah Games? Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Aaron Liffchak and Shawn Lipman to name two.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    - If they are two of the more notable players to compete in rugby at the Maccabiah Games, then I think that speaks for itself – both players only scrape past WP:NSPORTS. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      - Honestly, given the amount of trouble the RU project has had, because the majority of international rugby union still remains amateur, and has been in the recent past... I find it rich that the deletionists on here have made little effort to find out pretty much anything about the Maccabiah and the nature of it.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —MacRusgail (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Per MacRusgail. Same as our approach w/Olympic teams and the like.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Are you seriously comparing the Maccabiah Games with the Olympics? Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Comment - The Maccabiah is not the Olympics, but it is pretty big. The 2005 games had 7,000 competitors from around fifty countries. I do not wish club rugby teams to be deleted, but the national Maccabiah rugby teams are as notable as some of them, and are grouped together in an international tournament.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Yes, but the vast majority of those 7000 competitors are not (and will never be) notable. Just because a competition is big, does not mean every team that has competed at said competition needs an article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
      - Do all the teams of the Gay Games warrant an article? 9,475 athletes from 70 countries participated at the Gay Games in 2010. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        It is one of the largest and most heavily covered by RSs amateur international sporting events in the world. We cover teams at the Olympics. And we cover Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics. For the same reasons. Agree w/Mac here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        
        Who was asking the Gay Games to be deleted? Not me! The Maccabiah is a pretty big international event, certainly as important as some leagues in rugby, certainly more important than the Women's Lacrosse World Cup--MacRusgail (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        You are comparing apples with oranges. The discussion is not about the Maccabiah Games, or Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games, but on the individual teams competing at the events. Thus a more apt comparison would be the Canada national wheelchair curling team, of which there is no article. --Bob247 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - The Maccabiah is an internationally recognized sporting event by the IOC and other governing bodies. Therefore, it remains notable to wikipedia. -NYC2TLV (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Nobody is trying to delete the Maccabiah games, or even the Rugby union at the year Maccabiah Games articles. Just the squad lists, which contain no or very little information. The members of the squads themselves need not be deleted either, just merged into their relevant article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  - I have just looked at the IOC list of recognosed organisations and I couldn't help but notice that the Maccabi World Union or Federation is not listed. However, I should point out that the Maccabiah Games is not listed for deletion. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep All because this is obviously a very thorough attempt to make this vast topic encyclopedic and these are excellent Knowledge {{Sport-stub}}s under construction, see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Note also WP:NOTPAPER and the importance of the modern Maccabiah Games for secular Jews is no less than the modern Olympic Games. Certainly no less important than things like Category:Soccer clubs in Adelaide etc etc etc and hundreds more like that. IZAK (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- How is soccer clubs in Adelaide at all relevant to this discussion? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Maccabiah Games is not listed for deletion. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Follow the logic please. Jenks: The point is that WP has room for even relatively "minor" teams as long as they are part of a greater whole. Bob: The Maccabiah Games are made up of the teams that compete to get into it and participate in it. The whole cannot exist without the parts. IZAK (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      - Actually, many articles on Knowledge exist without the parts. Take a look at The Apprentice (U.S. season 1). How many parts or candidates have individual articles and how many had them before they were deleted for lack of notability? --Bob247 (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        Indeed, they "exist", but anyone may add more "parts" to enlarge a general subject. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
        and they will be subject to deletion, like many of the candidates in The Apprentice. --Bob247 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
        Whatever. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete all. I can find no significant coverage, which is what's required to pass the general notability guideline. As has been pointed out above, does not pass WP:RU/N either. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Teams competing in major international events. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The Keepers have neither demonstrated nor provided references that show that the teams listed above pass the general notability guidelines. If they are notable, please provide references that demonstrate their notability. These don't have to be internet based. If you have a book or similar that deomstrates notability, please provide said reference to the book. A similar situation exists for teams of the Gay Games, for which we do not have articles. Moreover, apart from the Israeli side (which is not listed above), none are members of their respective national unions. Knowledge is not a democracy, if you feel that the teams are notable, please provide references that demonstrate that they are. --Bob247 (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

When we have a major, highly notable (by RS coverage) international sporting event (as is the case with the Olympics), we don't have to have dozens of articles about each sport in the sporting event--we automatically cover all the events as notable. Such is the case here. But if anyone wants to read the hundreds/thousands of articles/books on rugby at the Maccabiah, they can read the following: here, here (ignoring the wiki entries), and here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, match reports/results in the local press are not considered the type of significant coverage required to satisfy the general notability guidelines, which most of the 198 articles cited in the first link are. --Bob247 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Widespread coverage (local press or not -- and here we have much more than local press) is sufficient. The coverage here -- please, read the books as well -- is far more than "passing mention", or "fewer than multiple RSs". Concentrate on the best sources -- we have far more than what is needed to reflect the multiple sources needed for notability. And far more than we have for Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics (as you know, it is permissible to look at "other stuff" when that is not the solitary argument in a deletion discussion).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to blind the argument by comparing apples with oranges. The discussion is not about the Maccabiah Games, or Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games, but on the individual teams competing at the events. Thus a more apt comparison would be the Canadian national wheelchair curling team, of which there is no article. The claim by Epeefleche of significant coverage being found via google is a clear case of misrepresentation, so can't be accepted as evidence of such coverage. If the evidence does exist, please add it to the relevant article to improve it and demonstrate notability. --Bob247 (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. As DGG pointed out above (and Mac, and NYC, and Izak make good points as well), they are notable because they are teams participating in a major international sporting event. That is highly relevant -- that is why we, for example, deem as notable Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics. We don't say .... oh, that's not notable, and please don't mention that it is an event in the Paralympics and that that is a major international sporting event. The fact that it is part of such a major notable event is what makes it notable. And anyone who looks at the refs will see that my citation to widespread coverage is accurate -- they don't have to accept my words, they can simply look at the sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games is not nominated for deletion. Therefore, any argument you make that the article Chile Maccabiah rugby union team equates with Wheelchair curling at the 2006 Winter Paralympics is not valid. A more apt comparison would be Canada national wheelchair curling team and even then it wouldn't be correct. The best comparison would be with the France national gay football team. Please stop comparing apples with oranges. Moreover, can you provide at least three references which satisfy WP:GNG for each of the articles listed above. That is, that address the subject directly in detail, from independent reliable sources that are independent of the the subject? No data dumps please. Actual indepth articles. Notability needs to be demonstrated, it is not inherent. Please list below: --Bob247 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an appropriate example. I have relatives who are involved in wheelchair curling! I don't know what all that quasi-homophobic nonsense about the Gay Games was about either.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Gay Games are a multisport event that has national teams in sports not affiliated with the national federations. Therefore it is a relevant example. --Bob247 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So why do you want the Gay Games done away with?! I've already provided an IRB link. NB - are the Barbarians affiliated to any national union? Because even if they are, A handful of Barbarians have been from outside the RWC teams, including at least one Swede (Karl Tapper) and some Germans.-MacRusgail (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not want the Gay Games done away with! I never suggested such a thing. What I did suggest though, was that teams involved in an event not dissimilar to the Maccabiah may be subject to deletion as well, as they too, will fail WP:GNG. The events themselves pass WP:GNG. The Babas easily soar over the requirements of WP:GNG as they have had books and chapters in books and television specials written about them and have received widespread press attention. The teams listed above have not. --Bob247 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Even amongst the links, there are connections to newspapers and websites based in NZ, Australia, England and Ireland (the IRB itself). I'd say that's fairly widespread. In actual fact, there have been a number of books on Jewish athletes (partly to counter certain anti-Semitic stereotypes).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche - Books LLC gets its information from Knowledge, as do all the others in your google book search. Instead of links to irrelevant search results can you just provide links to newspaper articles or other secondary source that discusses any of the team squads above. AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What is this bloody obsession with Google on Knowledge?! It's a search engine, not an academic research tool. I would be ripped to shreds if I wrote a dissertation based on Google search! Anyway, the Australian article had links to an Australian Jewish network, and a non-Jewish NZ website, both of which have disappeared due to WP:LINKROT (Quote - "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."), which shows precisely why we shouldn't rely heavily on weblinks for referencing.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"If they are notable, please provide references that demonstrate their notability." - As I have already pointed out, while it is not apt to compare these teams to high level international XVs, they are certainly competing at as high a level as many of the club sides we have articles about. (And which should be kept IMHO) The likes of Shawn Lipman and Zachary Test have appeared in Maccabiah rugby teams, both of whom have played in non-Maccabiah rugby (one at the 1991 RWC and the other in international VIIs.)--MacRusgail (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you guys are fascinated by online stuff, the IRB main website includes [http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/regional/newsid=2032816.html?cid=rssfeed&att= Australia win Maccabiah Rugby Gold (IRB.COM) Wednesday 22 July 2009] and this - [http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/regional/newsid=2032679.html Rugby ready to feature at Maccabiah Games (IRB.COM) Saturday 11 July 2009]. Like I say, I don't trust weblinks, as they tend to disappear after a couple of years.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those links satisfy WP:GNG for any of the teams listed above. They may be used to show notability of Rugby union at the 2009 Maccabiah Games though. --Bob247 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think guys at Knowledge make up the rules as they go along. (And there is some good evidence that they do.) What precisely do you want? DNA samples from all the players, and evidence that they've played in at least ten games?! The IRB is the international governing body of rugby union, so how much better than that can you do? As I keep on saying, these teams are at least as notable as some club sides. Your argument based on general notability is completely subjective.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete All Whew! What a mess of articles with unnotable team members. Knowledge is not an advertising space to acquire notability. One article on Maccabiah is sufficient--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Maccabiah what? Maccabiah rugby, or the entire Maccabiah?!--MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge anything referenced to a Rugby union at the Maccabiah games or similar, and Delete the rest. These are not notable players and the Maccabiah games is not a particularly notable rugby tournament. Lankiveil 23:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

You must have really done your research on this topic if you can't even find the main article... --MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a cruel call to make when they only missed it by not capitalising a letter. -- saberwyn 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. No evidence has been provided that the make-up of these teams are notable and series of articles on Rugby union at each Maccabiah Games seems to be a more appropriate location for any details. Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete all on reviewing the articles, only TWO players (Aaron Liffchak & Zachary Test) notable enough are listed in the articles. Just have a list of Notable Participants on the main article. Mt king 05:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - as per AIRcorn...--Stemoc (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete all I checked some of them and they reutned no news coverage at all, therefore not notable CapMan07008 (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

in all these comments, it seems to be ignored that playing in an international tournament would in fact make every one of the players listed notable under current guidelines, if the participation were verified. That the articles are not presently there is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

only two players have met WP:ATHLETE as these games are not a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. In rugby union, that would be the Rugby World Cup. This competition is far from being the highest level. Moreover, these same two players are the only ones that meet the less stringent WP:RU/N. The teams listed above are not even officially sanctioned by their own unions, let alone the International Rugby Board. --Bob247 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Consensus is that this sort of topic needs reliable secondary sources, not just religious texts as primary sources. Sandstein 06:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kulshreshtha

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

No assertion of importance or notability, unsourced. Has been previously CSDed. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: The articled was CSDed for A7, but the present article is not at all about a person. That said, I vote to delete as the article does not have any kind of references nor any reliable sources found from searching the web. I don't think any real research has gone into the history of the caste. IMHO people in India tend to brawl about their caste a lot (they even keep it in their names) - so a lot of material in the article might be NPOV and OR. — Fιnεmαnn 21:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Unsourced and badly written. Notability, if any, can not be established. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The page creator left this comment on my user talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I am trying create an article on "Kulshreshtha Community of India. I believe you have objections over the source of the information. The source is quoted in most cases. Example, Rig Veda, Garuda Purana whoch are all old Indian religious and spiritual texts. These texts also help in tracing the history of our culture. Other facts are based on real life findings about this community through research.

Kayasthas are the 2nd largest community in India. I believe information on prominent Kayastha communities like Kulshreshthas deserves a place on prominent databases. However, you are free to delete it or ask me further question if you donot find it suitable to be posted on Knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.mayank (talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "Kayasthas are the 2nd largest community in India". I really doubt that's even true. And if Kulshreshtha is related to Kayastha, why not merge the Kulshretha article along with the Kayastha article? — Fιnεmαnn 15:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: It would appear that 77.mayank is blissfully ignorant of the fact that religious scriptures are not considered reliable cources on Knowledge.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Of course religious texts are RSs for their contents, just as any other primary source. Even if one considers them just as fiction, they're still the preferred source for what they say. What they cannot be used for is proof of the actual historicity of what they say, unless there is additional evidence. If this caste is referred to significantly in these scriptures, it's notable ; what is needed is sources for the present day significance. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:PRIMARY. No secondary sources. Not easy finding good ones in English, but this one seems to indicate we're dealing with a community of almost 3000 identified members. Have no problem userfying to a sandboxspace so it can be improved enough to justify later inclusion. Knowledge policy cautions against use of primary sources without proper care. There are lots of assertions arguably sourced by a primary, but no required secondary to verify the interpretation of the wiki-contributors. Lacking those secondary sources we have zero verifiability, so this article as of this timestamp is by definition original research, no matter how accurate or even notable. So delete then userfy is the best course of action, unless someone adds secondaries before the close. Mere editing can't fix this. This threshold demands sources, or at least the presumption of. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Episode 30 (Beyond Belief)

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

No notability established per WP:EPISODE. Nominating for deletion here because its the first article of its kind I have ever seen. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete - does not meet notability guidelines. ItsZippy (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. It's still OK to call things fancruft, right? Several Times (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Completely unnotable and all plot. Also, all the other episodes for the show should also be deleted, given they're all the same caliber as this one. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this and the other episodes can't be merged into the episode list article? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
delete Better to add a list of episodes from scratch; this will not be a useful redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Armstrong number program in c++

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

WP:NOTGUIDE Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: have you attempted WP:PROD? Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete sounds like a speedy one might qualify. No content really, certainly not even a claim at being notable, since there are no sources nor links. It even has a different definition than the Armstrong number article has, in some details. Again, why in the world do we let new users create new articles on their first edit? A big waste of our time. /rant W Nowicki (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - no attempt at establishing notability is made. ItsZippy (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Knowledge is not (or at least shouldn't be) a source code repository. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Knowledge is not Sourceforge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I would first have thought merge to Narcissistic number, but the algorithm is clearly expressed there already and there's no special virtue to this expression of it in C. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
delete, clearly not an encyclopedic article and about a subject we already cover otherwise. sonia♫ 00:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

BRIC Group

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

This company does not seem even remotely notable, 30 hits on G News but most are about the BRIC group of countries. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

please search G news for subsidary company news, many more articles, including the products. I think the notability was established previously be an administrator also? SimongarciaME (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Administrators do not establish notability. Notability, or more specifically, meeting of Knowledge's notability criteria for inclusion, is established by providing reliable, independent references. You may be referring to this edit, in which an administrator declined speedy deletion. That administrator (DGG (talk · contribs)) decided that the article does not meet the very narrow criteria for speedy deletion. That does not mean that the article is immune to deletion under this process. —KuyaBriBri 19:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, however, notability is determined purely by frequency or number of notable achievments or by importance of achievements? Being the only company in middle east that has been given government approval, making them only company that can promote international opportunities, and also being the first to achieve this. Is that notability not about the maximum achievement for this type of business? SimongarciaME (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence of notability proffered, no independent, reliable sources proffered. Created and edited by SPAs, whose English language skills are curiously far superior in the article than are so far on display in this AfD; I suspect some manner of copyvio or spamming. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 16:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable real estate speculation firm. Because notability is not temporary, businesses need to show significant effects on history, culture, or technology to be notable. The article, while being fairly obviously not neutral, tells us enough about their business model to show that it is not particularly remarkable, much less history-making. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Christy Coté

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

Article cites no sources demonstrating notability, reads like an advertisement J N 466 18:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - article does not cite any references to establish notability. I can find no reliable third-party references on Google, though my search was not incredibly thorough. ItsZippy (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak Keep - as per my most recent edit to the page here. I noticed that the version that was up when afd was nominated (seen here) was a direct copyright from the woman's website. That version was posted by User:ChristyCote. I reverted the edit, and there are now four references, and no indication that the page has a COI problem with the earlier edits. If the recent information from her website (which claims appearances in several notable media venues) can be corroborated elsewhere and incorporated into the page, I feel she may pass notability. Anyways, giving it that chance to be improved to the point of passing notability is pretty implausible if her page is deleted, so I say bombard the thing with maintenance tags and let it collect some fixes. I know jacksquat about dancers and didn't really search for refs thoroughly, though, anybody here feeling super not lazy about the google? Sloggerbum (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: We cannot, of course, advocate keeping an article because the subject's website makes claims of notability. We can only do so if reliable, third-party sources are proffered - not suggested, not inferred, but if they are produced and included in the article. That being said, searches are turning up the subject's website, this article and Wiki mirrors, YouTube, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and the usual array of self-promotional sites. A Google News search, by contrast, turns up zero hits. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 16:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I'm pretty sure that the web pages for entertainers and others in artistic endeavours usually make claims that sound like they would be notable. However, this needs to be borne out through coverage in reliable sources, which are not evident for this person. None of the sourcing in the article represents independent coverage and the best I could manage searching are some passing mentions like this, and this. This confirms she teaches tango but not much else. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus is trending strongly to "keep". The claims to WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER have not been made out with consensus support. Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of albums released in 2012

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

WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. 99% of this list are "untitled" future albums. This article can wait until there's a bit more information about the various entries. Right now, it's too early. Singularity42 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete An encyclopedia is for facts, not things that might happen in the future. BigJim707 (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep "An encyclopedia is for facts, not things that might happen in the future" So you'll be deleting all the future Olympic Games articles, then? For this list, remove any albums without a title (per WP:HAMMER) and leave the rest. They all seem to have a source indiciating that they'll be released in 2012, which isn't that far away (no different than List of films released in 2012). And rename the article to List of albums scheduled for release in 2012 until 1st Jan 2012. Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Now the article is renamed to List of albums scheduled for release in 2012. Austin Snake Boy (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Nice one, Snakey. Lugnuts (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Tense issues aside, I agree that both WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL apply here. PaintedCarpet (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Just because 2012 is still far doesn't mean this article should be deleted. 2012 in American music has also been created for months, yet no one is requesting it to be deleted. Another reason List of albums released in 2012 shouldn't be deleted is that all the releases listed on that article have references. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep even though 2012 hasn't started yet. Austin Snake Boy (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Userfy until 2012. It may be a sourced schedule, but mostly untitled and there is still 4.5 months to go, there could be delays until 2013, so it does fall under WP:CRYSTAL.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Too soon, but keep. Some of the albums planned to be released this year could have delays until 2012. 130.65.109.102 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I feel using a category instead would do most of the trick, but I agree that this is a valid list. The thing is that at this point in time the list is so speculative that it shouldn't be in mainspace, and when 2012 does come around no item will be eligible for inclusion until it is actually released, so you can't have all these albums in the table from January 1st, you'd still have to wait to add them one by one. A possible solution could be to have two tables, one for those that have been released, and another for those that are scheduled for release that year (provided there is a solid reference to back it up), and then transfer them progressively from one to the other — frankie (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete 43 out of 48 albums in this list are Untitled. Plus it doesn't even list all the albums that are scheduled for release in 2012. (for example, the Sugababes 8th album) 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep, per 2012 and beyond in film and List of video games in development. Even though these albums are not released, they are items that are in development/recording and are well sourced. BOVINEBOY2008 15:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment The vast majority of the films and games in the mentioned articles actually have both a title and an article per WP:NFF (and its game equivalent). Here, there's nothing except for a handful of albums. That's why it's different.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete just the List of albums released in 2012 article, since it now redirects to List of albums scheduled for release in 2012. Alex (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Since the List of albums scheduled for release in 2012 article was created, delete List of albums released in 2012. Mr. Metal Head (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Seeing how 2012 is not too far away, and the title change, I see no reason why this can't stay. Lugnuts also made a really good argument about why this should be kept, and I second it. Each and every one is sourced. — Status {_contribs 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree too, delete since all the albums aren't released yet and today we're still in the year 2011. 130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep: WP:CRYSTAL applies here. But that also says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." There's almost certainty that albums will be released in 2012 and that we know the name and artist of many of them. We can eventually remove those that aren't released from the list. Dzlife (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Relisting comment: Since there have been significant changes during this week, a relist seems in order so that everyone can take the time to re-evaluate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Just have a spine and close it based on the above. Lugnuts (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect and merge any sourced material to 2012 in American music or 2012 in heavy metal music (thats all the pages that exist with this format, see Category:2012 in music for other articles to merge content with). for any material without firm due dates, i suggest an article called "list of forthcoming albums" so the title will be permament while the content changes. same problem at 2012 and beyond in film, which must change its name each year. logically, we CANNOT call an article by this name until jan 01 12:00:O1 am 2012, and CANNOT have a lead which describes a temporal impossibility.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Each individual album would qualify for deletion under WP:HAMMER so a list of them should go.Eauhomme (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the article again. There are at least 5 albums with names, so you fail both HAMMER and CRYSTAL. Still, thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep and rename to indicate "scheduled to be released in 2012" per Lugnuts. Moogwrench (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep , consider renaming. This is already September, and major releases are discussed in RSs by now. I doubt I'd support an article yet about Albums to be released in 2013, and I'm not sure about when in 2012 one could be usefully started, but that's anther question. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Leandro Sigman

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

This is a self-promotional article likely created by a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. The person here seems no more notable than millions of other "entrepreneurs". Jason Quinn (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - This is a poorly written piece that does not rise to WP:BIO, and does not look like it has the potential to do so. Nothing in the article demonstrates that the subject is recognized as notable in his field by independent sources. Three of the four paragraphs in the body talk about the significance of organizations with which he is connected, not his own role within them. As with other articles that seem to be written because the subject would be glad for a nice presence on the web, people interested in creating a page with this information should consider a small investment in an independent website, where external editors won't interfere with the content. Bella the Ball (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete-no evidence of notability can be found--AssegaiAli (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Trans Am (band)

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

unremarkable band which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only claim of notability is "constant touring" in support of other notable bands. Unfortunately that notability isn't inherited. RadioFan (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC criterion 5, Thrill Jockey is a major independent label. Recury (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: plenty of significant coverage, including articles in The New York Times, Billboard, Pitchfork Media, Exclaim!, PopMatters, Allmusic, Drowned in Sound, Slant Magazine and more. I've added these and other sources to the article. Subject meets WP:BAND. Gongshow 20:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Starpoint Gemini

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

unremarkable video game produced by a non-notable company, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Secondary sources are in the article, fully satisfies WP:GNG. Developer's notability is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's got secondary sources but are they reliable?--RadioFan (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Gamer.no has a great news article, Gamez.nl review, RockPaperShotgun 1 2 3, ComputerGames.ro, Gamers.at, PC Powerplay April 2011 issue, Gamershell 1 2, RPGWatch, GameCorner.pl news item. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ths sources support notability . DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

SF City ID Card

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

This article has just one reference, I'm not sure if it's Knowledge-worthy. Nathan2055 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

keep this is massively important. it's part of a nation-wide movement to regularize the status of undocumented aliens on a sub-federal level. it's ongoing. i can see how you can't tell this from the article, which is incompletely sourced, incomplete in content, and poorly written, but i believe it ought to be kept and fixed. here are some sources spanning a number of years (not all have SF in the title, but they all discuss the SF program): In Trenton, Issuing IDs for Illegal Immigrants (NYT), and San Francisco judge rejects challenge to city ID card plan (Oakland tribune, paywalled), and San Francisco delays rollout of ID card program (USA today), and so on. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Article is stubby, but Alf is right that it is an important subject, and part of a larger movement. As with many articles that start slowly, it should be kept and allowed to get better. Bella the Ball (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable. I added some references (thank you, Alf) and made it clearer what the program is about. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect - By themselves they may not be sufficiently notable to pass WP:GNG. That being said it may have enough weight to be mentioned in an article regarding Illegal immigration to the United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are links from the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, USA Today, and the New York Times; that's not enough? --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The NYT article is written largly in the context of the overall issue. The local major newspapers also have more than minor parts that discuss the subject of the article in the context of the larger subject, therefore the subject falls within the larger subject Illegal immigration to the United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The cards are not just about illegal immigration. Here is a USA Today article showing that the San Francisco program is intended to help other groups such as transgender individuals. When the city of Richmond, California approved a similar program, they noted that "many Richmond residents lack the necessary forms of official identification that are required to access financial institutions, jobs, housing, and protections for the home and workplace. These residents include immigrants, children, students, the homeless, transgender people, the indigent, the disabled, the elderly, runaway youth, and adult survivors of domestic violence."

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

World Orders of Knighthood and Merit

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

Contested prod. Nothing in the article to suggest notability. Nothing on Google scholar, books, or news to suggest notability. Cannot find reliable third party secondary sources to determine notability. See talk page for further discussion Decstop (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I don't think this is notable enough to have an article and looking at WP:NB I don't think it meets the criteria set out there. The book is mentioned at Burke's Peerage which I think is sufficient so possibly redirect to that article. - dwc lr (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nominator.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't rate alongside Burke's Peerage, Debrett's and Almanach de Gotha as an established, widely known work of reference, AFAIK (despite assertions on the talk page). Not usual to have articles on sources unless there is evidence of notability. Maybe include useful info elsewhere, with redirects? Folks at 137 (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Central Asia Health Review

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about an on-line magazine was recreated immediately after a previous AfD, as noted on the article talk page. The website is now defunct and its domain is for sale. The article contains no indication that it was ever notable. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: It is still non-notable and doesn't even exist anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability for this short-lived journal. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure). — frankie (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Naranjeros de Álamo

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

~~Appears to be a non notable soccer club. YouTube video on them has <400 views. Matthew Thompson 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)~~ It appears many articles like this have made it through on this page. I'm not sure whether I can, but can I withdraw this AfD? --Matthew Thompson 16:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lester Leaps In

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

(The article in question is regarding an album collection of performances of Lester Young --apparently a CD compilation, probably from the 1990s or 2000s; the performer passed away in 1959.)

Serious discographical flaws in article

First, the release date was given as identical to the last date identified among the various recording dates.

Second, the recording is given as album, yet with the original release date this is an error, as there were no long playing vinyl albums until the end of the 1940s.

Third, the running time is given as around 56 minutes. Jazz albums of short compositions such as these, in compilation format, were never release in the LP era. The running time of 56 minutes indicates a compact disc. Are compilations on minor or semi-legal non-US recording labels usually included in wikipedia?

Fourth, there is no record company or catalog number given. For that matter, no reference is given for this article.

Fifth, the last point is crucial, as it would help differentiate the album from numerous other releases that appear in the most comprehensive popular recording database, allmusic.com , with the same exact album title.

Sixth, the song configuration correlates with no album with the title, Lester Leaps In, that appears in the above database or in amazon.com

For the above reasons, I recommend this article for deletion.Dogru144 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

And, there are no references or sources for this article.Dogru144 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:Notability and verifiability as a compilation album. First: Verifiability problems: Amazon lists two CD compilations of Lester Young's recording with this title, but they have different tunes on them. There may well be a CD compilation with this title and these tunes, but there is no reference to prove it, and not even a mention of the record company or record number. Second: Notability issues: There is no information provided, nor could I find evidence, that this particular compilation was a notable one, with reviews , critical commentary, high sales, or placing in jazz recording charts. That said, the individual tune named "Lester leaps in" could very easily be shown to be a notable jazz classic, popular in Young's own 1939 jazz instrumental "Lester Leaps In, widely discussed in books about jazz, and widely played by notable jazz bands and musicians, and discussed in books about jazz standard tunes. The tune :Lester leaps in" is ranked 219 in the top 1000 jazz standards at Jazzstandards.com. So it would be appropriate for someone to create a new article about the tune "Lester leaps in," and if they do there should be no suggestion they were "recreating a deleted article." Edison (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daedalus Encounter Game Over points

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

Contested prod about gameplay on a defunct adventure game. This is an unencyclopaedic and valueless list of places in the game where users can get unexpectedly wiped out. Fails WP:VGSCOPE, WP:NOTHOWTO. andy (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete not even worth a merge. Knowledge is not GameFAQs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete ooh, Daedalus Encounter, I loved that game. But this list has nothing notable about it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Transwiki'd over to StrategyWiki:The Daedalus Encounter/Walkthrough with full histories. -- Prod (Talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Frank Dopatka

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

The article appears to fail the WP:PROF criteria. The option of WP:AUTHOR was raised on the article talk page but the criteria there do not seem to be matched either when considering the results available in GScholar (very low numbers of citation matches for a computer science subject) and I find no matches in GNews. Fæ (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTH. His works are not widely cited. Appears to be an autobiographical page. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, very little of relevance in GScholar and GBooks, nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
Delete. The citations fall far short of WP:PROF#C1. The books seem to be less academic studies and more technical guides to PHP and Acrobat, so WP:PROF isn't really the right criterion to use for them, but for WP:AUTHOR we'd need third-party reviews in the popular media (e.g. newspapers or trade magazines) and I didn't find any of that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete- Its a conflict of issues look at who crated this, its self promotion. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- COI is rarely a reason to delete by itself --Guerillero | My Talk 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Courcelles 11:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nagaon

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

I'm am a bit cautious but this articles looks to be copyvio from http://www.focusindiagroup.in/content/nagaon.aspx Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

keep but remove blatant copyvio: duplication detector results. the copyvio seems to have been added mostly all at once by an ip editor, although by this point it will take some work to get rid of it without messing up good faith edits. however, i'm thinking keep because of Knowledge:Notability (geography) and the fact that the place exists. the fact that some misguided soul decided to copy/paste a bunch of stuff doesn't mean that we don't need an article on an existing location. general consensus regarding geography says that we do need this article. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

keep This is a prominent place, so the article should be kept, but the copyrighted material should be deleted. Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Now I had more time to look at it, it appeared to be even worse. After the removal of the copyvio from "Focusindiagroup", I also had to remove copyvio from Assaminfo and Official website Nagaon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is still a very bad article, but I think it can be reworked now to a proper form. Should we speedy close the AfD?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I could go for that. I think it might be good to just delete everything without a citation, and just leave the standard stuff that appears in place articles. there are plenty of them that have nothing more than a sentence saying that the place exists. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Keep/Close - Whenever we come across a situation of an obviously notable subject (at a 1/4 million population, this has got to be the largest city, town or village I've ever seen thrown up for AfD) with mostly copyright violation content, it's best to simply delete the content and write a basic stub. Takes a few minutes. --Oakshade (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was cautious because in the limited time I had available, I could not find out who was copying from who. It won't be the first time that something looks copyvio, only to find out that they had copied Knowledge without attribution. Better safe then sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  - Such problems are best addressed by following the instructions at Knowledge:CP#Suspected or complicated infringement. AfD is not equipped to handle copyvios effectively. —SpacemanSpiff 07:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 advertisement. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Hi Impact Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

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

An article in template space. Non-notable business. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Besides wrong name space, zero real references, zero indication of notability. 100% blatant self-promotion. It's even written in first person (" e.g. we......") North8000 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

IPA Adriatic CBC Programme

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

Fails WP:GNG seems like usual europrojectcruft. Cerejota (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Delete. How is it that these Europhiles seem to think independent refs are unnecessary? I have seen several Seventh Framework and similar articles which are equally non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment No independent references. Also the whole thing is written as their info sheet about themselves and their program. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Completely non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. If someone wnats to work on it, just let me know. Courcelles 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fender John Mayer BLACK1 Stratocaster

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

Fails WP:GNG Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Userfy I found a few articles here and here. The second article is part of a longer article here. Getting rid of the Fender promotional info and using these sources might create a workable article. PaintedCarpet (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Might make a good few-sentence section in another article, could userfy for that purposes if someone will take it. This is just a blatant catalog listing for this product, including pricing and available options. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

When Fire Rains Down from the Sky, Mankind Will Reap as It Has Sown

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

no evidence of meeting WP:NALBUMS. could not find significant coverage. google just reveals directory listings and mirrors. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I tried Goodsearch(usually works better than Google) and found full reviews in The Metal Observer and Pandora on the first page of results.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Notable album by a notable band. Allmusic review here, About.com review here. It was also definitely reviewed by Terrorizer, which I can dig out if it's really necessary. Also worth pointing out that although it was originally released on Mordgrimm, it has subsequently been reissued through the highly notable Earache Records. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Keep the articles on the books but Delete Weaponry in Dale Brown novels. Though many people are making the argument from sheer numbers, the fact is, as they have also mentioned, that there is coverage of these books (I have the priviledge of being able to see the 'offline' articles) which is in more than passing, in multiple and reliable sources. However, as also pointed out, Weaponry in Dale Brown novels does not meet these criteria and is bordering on, if not actually, fancruft. My recommendation is that these articles be tagged for improvement and that those with access to LexisNexis add supporting quotes in the references so that those without access to the database can actually see what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs)

Flight of the Old Dog

I am also nominating:

These articles, all of which are about books written by one Dale Brown, fail to comply with:

Knowledge:Verifiability: Source is what you mostly cannot find in them. The last article in the list above is the worst: Basically, one must study ALL of Dale Brown's works to be able verify the article's accuracy.
Knowledge:Notability (books). Nearly all of them are made up of a small description and a long plot detail. Passing over the lack of source, there is no significant coverage of them in reliable secondary sources. (At a first glance, Silver Tower seems to be an exception but upon examination of notability claims, one realizes that it is not notable at all.)

The article Dale Brown is also in serious need of attention a third opinion, or perhaps an AFD. Fleet Command (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep all and tag for issues. Per this NY Times article, Flight of the Old Dog was a NY Times best seller, and the article I linked contains more than a passing mention. I haven't spent time looking at the other novels but I would be surprised if subsequent novels from a NY Times best selling author didn't garner multiple reviews from reliable sources. The only article that seems immediately dubious is Weaponry in Dale Brown novels, and really doesn't fit with the others which are articles about specific novels. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- It was about time! I was thinking when I am going to see you here, Whpq. Anyway, I am not sure if this NY Times article is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, so lets see what others have to say (though perhaps a merger with Dale Brown article is on the table). Still, this "Weaponry in Dale Brown novels" is completely unreferenced; you know, contents without references in Knowledge are challenged or deleted. As for the other novels, well I am afraid someone does need to take his time because notability requires verifiable evidence you know. Fleet Command (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the utter lack of reliable sources to establish the notability of these articles, deletion wouldn't be out of line here, but at the very least the entire lot should be rolled into one article until the content can be fleshed out. Whether that is Dale Brown itself or a new list of books by Dale Brown is perhaps worth discussing: personally I'd just redirect to the author's article until someone makes the effort to add even the barest of secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable book from apparently notable author. Agree with Chris's comment "I'd just redirect to the author's article" NickCT (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep the novels. "Flight of the old dog" has "significant coverage" in the "reliable and independent" New York Times which says it was a best seller. Are there similarly good references for the other books, or not? Here is NY Times coverage of "Day of the cheetah," which was at least as high as #5 on the fiction paperback best seller list. Here is coverage in the NY Times of "Hammerheads." I would not hold out great hope for your proposed AFD of Dale Brown. An Associated Press article (AP archive, Nov 23, 1998)" says "Brown's books including Flight of the Old Dog, Day of the Cheetah and Fatal Terrain have sold more than 10 million copies in 70 countries." Edison (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Objection: Well, you obviously misread the nomination on three accounts:
1. I never nominated Dale Brown.
2. You have misread WP:NBOOKS: We require multiple coverages for each, not one. After all, Knowledge is not advertising agent of New York Times. Being a "best seller" does not necessarily warrant a Knowledge article, per WP:NOTADVERT.
3. Again, you misread the nomination: Articles have other problems besides notability that are enough to warrant a merge (or deletion) such as lack of source and merely being made up of plot details.
Fleet Command (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Do you recall posting above "The article Dale Brown is also in serious need of attention a third opinion, or perhaps an AFD." That led to my expressing doubts about the success of such an AFD as you discussed. Note that I did not state you had ever AFD'd the Dale Brown article. Have you read WP:BEFORE? Did you check to see if the various books you lumped into this nomination had reviews in such sources as Publisher's Weekly "a weekly trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers and literary agents," per the Knowledge article, and apparently a reliable source on books, besides the coverage in the NY Times? Here are some reviews of the various books by Dale Brown, in addition to the NY Times coverage you dismiss, in Publishers Weekly: . Here is coverage of many of Dale Brown's books in Library Journal, another reliable source: . Here are reviews of many of his books at Kirkus Reviews, another reliable source: . Through a library, you might also check out the reviews of his books at Booklist, another reliable reference . Given that they were reviewed at all, how could you demand deletion for lack of verifiability? Is it the existence of the books, or their having been best sellers, or the plot details that you claim are unverifiable? Your reference to WP:NOTADVERT makes no sense. A listing as a best seller by the NY Times is not a paid advertisement. It reflects high sales. Edison (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect sir, I did read WP:BEFORE and I have been searching for convincing evidences since 18 February 2011. (Yes, it was an on and off affair; I have a life after all.) However, from where I am standing, I am not convinced. The search results you came up with seem to me like obligatory listing of statistics than actual coverages and admiration of the literary community.
All the same you did not address my second objection: The articles merit deletion, not just because their subject is not notable but because they themselves are are pieces of lamentable plot spoilers that do not resemble Knowledge articles. Fleet Command (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the references. What I cited includes reviews, i.e. significant coverage, not merely "statistics" as you claim. As for "plot spoilers," there is no objection to providing plot spoilers in Knowledge articles about fiction. Do I have to search out that whole controversy, which was settled in favor of spoiling plots a few years ago? Please read the guidelineWP:SPOILER, which has some discussion on its talk page (and the archives thereof) as to why "spoilage" is appropriate in our articles about fiction. Folks who don't want to prematurely learn "whodunnit" should not read an encyclopedia article about a thriller. If the subject of an article satisfies WP:N, as the multiple significant coverage in reliable and independent sources for these works shows, then your assertion that the articles "do not resemble Knowledge articles" is a call for "EDITING" to improve the articles, rather than deletion.Edison (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Utter nonsense. Knowledge is not a junk yard. If something is notable it may or may not have an article, but not junk. (I see that you have chosen to censor the fifth clause of Notability to suit your own favor.) These so-called articles are junks beyond repair. The best you can do to keep them is dump your Internet links there, hoping no one click on them and see how worthless they are. Fleet Command (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Your arguments become increasingly incomprehensible. I cited coverage of Brown's books at several reliable sites which are consulted by librarians when they make purchasing decisions, and you link to an irrelevant essay about "bombarding" with irrelevant references. Yes, it is easier for you to claim lack of verifiability and lack of notability when references are lacking, but I will not apologize for finding and citing references. What do you mean by your claim that I "censored" the "fifth clause of notability?" At WP:N, item 5 is "Common circumstances." Is that what you were alluding to? Edison (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll try to be nice and explain in great length:
First: I said "clause five" not "section five". Clause five says:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Knowledge is not."
Well, these articles do violate What Knowledge is not § Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specifically prohibits: Summary-only descriptions of works. As I kept saying and saying, these articles are not only plot summaries only but low-quality plot summaries too! In a word: Junk (as opposed to Good Article.)
Second: Bombardment is simple. Just dump a couple of links into an article, claim those links prove notability and tell everyone that "it is notable, so fix it!" However, upon close inspection of these links one may discover that "so fix it" is impossible as these links may not be used to provide inline citations and improve the article to the condition of a Good Article. The article stays in a limbo state, stuck somewhere between Stub-class and Start-class but neither of the two. The sources that you have introduced are of such quality: They cannot be actually used to fix the articles. WP:NBOOK, our main reference of notability for book dismisses such assertion of notability and requires that:
1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
Have to break off now. Later... Fleet Command (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Weaponry in Dale Brown novels as original research, since there is not only no secondary coverage, but the list of weapons is not even cross referenced to the novels in which they are said to appear. It is also unclear which were or are actual deployed weapons and which are fiction, like Gundam gadgets. Edison (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: perhaps such stuff would be better off put in some Dale Brown wiki. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep all the books that are bestsellers are notable. The first one, Flight of the Old Dog, says "the paperback edition sold 1.1 million copies in the first two weeks". Selling over a million copies in two weeks is a notable accomplishment by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 10:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. As far as Knowledge:Notability (books) is concerned, the book could have been sold a zillion copies and still do not merit inclusion in Knowledge. You basically said Delete, only you yourself don't know it. Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  - If the guideline Knowledge:Notability (books) does not describe the actual practice in AFDs, where bestselling books generally get kept as de facto notable, then it may need a tweak. Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes says "Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." Best sellers are "well known." The employment of guidelines requires a measure of common sense. Books are popular culture. In music guidelines, being "ranked on national or significant music charts" is taken to imply notability. Being a bestselling book similarly implies notability. I have added some references to the various book articles under discussion. Many of Brown's thrillers have had multiple lengthy reviews published in reliable sources in addition to being bestsellers, thus satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    - A small number of campers keep the notability books guideline from being changed to something more reasonable, however in most AFDs where the book is a bestseller, it is kept, do to common sense. And I know what I said FleetCommand. If the New York Times believes that selling over a million copies in two weeks is amazingly notable enough to have an article on, then obviously that is something of importance. Dream Focus 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
      - Nonsense and nonsense! First, the mere word "bestseller" is a peacock term and is not allowed in Knowledge; not to mention that your interpretation of Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is totally novel and partly bogus. Second, Knowledge is not a slave of New York Times to write an article for whatever unremarkable piece of junk that they fancy. Third, if you two do not agree with notability guideline on books, then you have a conflict of interest. Last but not least, I have repeated multiple times that notability is not the only problem of these articles as they have a problem with WP:NOT too (which is one of the founding pillars of Knowledge). But you two simply refuse to get the point. Fleet Command (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
        You honestly believe the word "bestseller" is not allowed in Knowledge? By "unremarkable piece of junk", you are referring to a book that sold over a million copies in less than two weeks? If it was junk, or unremarkable, then it wouldn't sell that well. Dream Focus 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
        Check this out:
        In everyday use, the term bestseller is not usually associated with a specified level of sales, and may be used very loosely indeed in publisher's publicity. Bestsellers tend not to be books considered of superior academic value or literary quality, though there are exceptions. Lists simply give the highest-selling titles in the category over the stated period. Some books have sold many more copies than contemporary "bestsellers", but over a long period of time.
        And "junk" refers to articles not books as explained earlier; maybe you though we have nominated books for deletion? Fleet Command (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        
        "specified level of sales"? One of them sold over a million copies in one week! And do we eliminate articles on television programs because the highest rated ones "tend not to be considered of superior academic value or literary quality"? Educational things are less likely to be reviewed than popular entertainment, just as some genres of books are less likely to be reviewed than others. Knowledge isn't a bureaucracy, with strict following of rules. Instead one of the policies is WP:IAR, to ignore all rules and use common sense. That certainly applies here. Dream Focus 14:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        
        FleetCommand, you are engaging in a very petty sort of Wikilawyering.(You have complained about others Wikilawyering in the past). You seem to have misread the manual of style and common outcomes, or to have missed the relevant parts. "Bestseller" is not noted as a peacock term in the manual of style, and there are several articles about bestsellers. Knowledge has the following articles:List of best-selling books, Publishers Weekly lists of bestselling novels in the United States, List of best-selling fiction authors and Bestseller, which notes the NY Times bestseller lists as tracking national and independent bookstores. It compares bestsellers to musical "chart toppers." The New York Times Best Seller list says that list is "widely considered the preeminent list of best-selling books in the United States." My "novel and bogus" interpretation of "common outcomes" is a direct quote. Edison (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
        Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Denying the antecedents. And yes, I reiterate that your interpretation of Commons Outcomes is totally novel and partly bogus, as you have denied the antecedents. Fleet Command (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        Your complaint is again unclear. If I am Denying the antecedent, then I am saying "If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q." What part of my quotation from common outcomes is P, and what part is Q, in your mind? Edison (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment How long does this AFD have to be left open? It was started on 12 August. Seven days is typical. Edison (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- It was given another week at 26 August 2011. So I assume September 2rd will be when they look at it again. In case someone goes insane and actually deletes articles for such notable books, I went ahead and copied everything over, full history and all, to http://dalebrown.wikia.com/Dale_Brown_Wiki Dream Focus 00:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  - Yes, and 2 September 2011 will probably be final. Administrators don't usually relist more than twice. But I don't know why Edison asks such a question when he knows the answer. After all, I know that he is an admin and therefore knows all of these. Strange. 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) }
Keep Flight of the Old Dog and any other novel that has made the NYT bestseller list per DreamFocus. Merge the other book articles into a List of Dale Brown novels or the like. Then, Redirect the weaponry (and aircraft, too) to the list. There's no reason to delete the weapons/aircraft information--it appears harmless--and maybe someday someone can make something out of it.

Note for the record that I actually like this way of dealing with a finite but problematic topic. While some editors oppose mass dissimilar nominations, this gives us one discussion to handle multiple issues and come to a solution for the entire topic, rather than individual articles getting hit-or-miss attention. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as that finite number is managable, I do not mind seeing two or four or six related articles at the same AFD. However, many of us have seen mass nominations of 20 or 40 or 60 related topics, making the addressing of issues problematic at best. Schmidt, 07:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep all - simply notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep the novels; probably keep the weaponry article also as a useful summary. The books are best sellers, as proven by reliable sources like the NYT, and that settles it. I am really surprised the nom did not withdraw this after that was pointed out. Any books for which there seriously remains doubt about notability should be nominated separately. WP:BEFORE should be a requirement,for it will prevent useless discussions like this one. By any reasonable interpretation of the concept of notability, popularity of something to the point that RSs recognize the popularity is notability. What is not necessarily notability is unsupported assertions of popularity, which tend to mean only "I think it's interesting". DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment A small number of editors at Knowledge:Notability (books) are opposed to sales number or being a bestseller conveying notability. Far fewer have participated in such discussions than participate regularly here at AFD, so there is a disconnect between de facto notability as established here by the Knowledge community, and the guideline as edited by a very few editors. The talk page archives of the notability guideline show contempt for books which were on the bestseller list for several weeks or months, on the grounds that once they fall off the best seller list, they are remaindered at outlet stores and fall from consciousness. This disregards libraries and continuing sales at Amazon many years later. The emphasis is on books which are "taught in school," and makes me wonder if the guidelines were set up by folks who rarely read for pleasure. Pop music has no such requirement of "being taught." In AFD after AFD, editors cite "bestseller" and the book is kept, and the guideline goes its merry exclusionary and deletionist way. (And I !vote for deletion many times as often as for keeping in AFDs.) Edison (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need to just change the guidelines and that'll prevent future unnecessary discussions. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)#Strawpoll. How many want to make being on the bestseller's list proof of notability for a book? Dream Focus 00:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

Comment Your edit summary implied these links had not been here before, They are at the top of the AFD, except for the garbled "DangeThe Tin Man." (Dang him, indeed!). I already spent many hours finding sources at Google News, LexisNexis, and Proquest, via my library, and added numerous reviews from well known publications and NY Times bestseller placements to the several articles. Such a search by the nominator would also have been appropriate WP:BEFORE the mass nomination was made. Edison (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see any "Find sources" there. What I do see is
Day of the Cheetah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Night of the Hawk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fatal Terrain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Tin Man (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Storming Heaven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Silver Tower (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Weaponry in Dale Brown novels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

So I put some here so I could look at them before offering an opinion. Good work on the article improvements by the way. Schmidt, 03:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep ALL Books that make it to The New York Times' best seller list are invariably the recipients of review and commentary from multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Just as have these, and just as has the author himself. We do not delete notable topics if perceived issues can be addressed through normal editing, just as was shown by the "normal editing" work of User:Edison. Schmidt, 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete the weaponry article as unsourced and thus presumably original research (as well as non-notable fancruft). Weak keep the books, as they seem to have received the sort of coverage pulp bestsellers normally get. Sandstein 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would think that some portions of the weaponry article might be merged back into the various book articles if done in context and properly sourced. That would eliminate the "seeming" of original research, and place much of the information where our readers might best expect it to be. Schmidt, 07:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Craig Benson (swimmer)

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes and WP:GNG. All coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE Vanadus (talk | contribs) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Subject won gold at a big international competition, and has set a speed record in his own country. Bella the Ball (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A speed record in the 17 year old British Age Group, which isn't quite the same--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:ATHLETE isn't too helpful for swimmers, but suggests any athlete should have competed at "the highest level such as the Olympics" which is not the case here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your case is stronger than mine. As I said, weak keep, can easily be persuaded to downgrade, pending further discussion. Bella the Ball (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Note that this does not preclude a merge as suggested by Bella the Ball and that would be my recommendation. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Corn Festival

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

Doesn't seem notable, I didn't see any sources about it on Google without going several pages in. Just another city festival about something or another. Pilif 12p 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. I was able to find several references, and I added them to the article. I suppose that if the Dayton Daily News runs several different articles about the event, it might be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep Borderline on wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep - Agree with apparent borderline notability. NickCT (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge with Fairborn, Ohio. The festival is non-notable in itself, but is an important civic activity for the town. Anyone wanting to know about the festival would not be disappointed to find that it is a section of the larger article. Bella the Ball (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Moral Premise

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

This concept is described in only two books, one of which is not at all notable, and the other of which does not, as stated in the text, actually use the term "moral premise." It's possible that an article could be written on Egri's concept of "premise," but this article is almost entirely about Williams's "moral premise," and "find all new sources, replace nearly all the content, and rename the article" is not significantly different from "delete and rewrite from scratch." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, reluctantly, because it's an interesting read. But as nominator noted, it is mostly based on Stanley Williams' non-notable book, and I could not find any further discussion of the book or the concept at Google Books. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cysteine Motif and Prediction Database

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

An highly specialised biochemical database. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete – no publication describing this database has as yet been published in a peer reviewed journal. Boghog (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete for lack of notability. Consider speedy deletion per WP:COPYVIO as the bulk of the text identical to the copyrighted external link.Novangelis (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. rather negative blp about someone with at best very borderline notability DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Joey Sweeney

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

This person has not achieved noteworthiness as defined by Knowledge guidelines. Starting a minor blog (that was deleted from Knowledge) and self-releasing a few albums does not qualify by my understanding. TheNate (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Nothing inherently notable about this person 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuddle Cup

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

No assertion of notability per WP:NBOOK; can't find a single mention of it online from WP:Reliable sources; ISBN given in first draft was incorrect, and I can't find an ISBN for it online; promotional article by book's author per WP:COI. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil 09:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete- essentially spam for a non-notable self-published book. LadyofShalott 17:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete as pure spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable self-published book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Eric Caldwell

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

Violin maker who does not appear to meet inclusion requirements. Being a violin maker is not inherently notable and I can find nothing about him in independent reliable sources to indicate notability - all that there is appears be sites selling his violins. The article claims notability in two awards: one is another retailer who appears to be promoting him so not a reliable indpendent source; the other is more interesting as it is from the Violin Society of America, but is perhaps not so significant as it seems: the Certificate of Merit is awared to a great many competition submissions such that it neither seems to be notable in itself, nor has it attracted the kind of interest required to meet the WP:GNG. Furthermore, this is a WP:BLP and none of the personal details are referenced; the only verifiable part of this article is that the subject is indeed a violin maker. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Being a violin maker is not all that unusual, see eg this listing. It is clear from the article that most of Mr Caldwell's experience has been in repair, and he is only beginning on an independent career. He fails GNG, and as pointed out the award is an 'also ran'. --AJHingston (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Being "unusual" is not part of policy or guidelines for notability. WP:GNG See also a useful link It should also be noted that whereas most online references to Mr. Caldwell and his work are in retail advertisements, they are all secondary sources and not self-published. Furthermore, however interesting or not these advertisements may be, they are not referenced in the article and therefore, not a verifiability concern. As a matter of personal disclosure, I have contributed to the article. I have personal knowledge of Mr. Caldwell and his work. I find it an utterly perposterous and libelous argumentum ad hominem that, "he is only beginning on an independent career." In fact, Mr. Caldwell has personally built more than 80 instruments and prior to working at the Potter Violin Co., owned and opperated The Cleveland Violin Shop in Cleveland Heights, OH. Regarding RichardOSmith's concern, WP:BLP The article in question does not contain "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and therefore needs not "be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Also, this article is about an American, not a subject of the crown. So please, stop embedding links for UK search engines. On to AJHingston's allegation that a VSA certificate of merrit is an "also-ran," the 19th International VSA Competition and Exhibition had over 300 entries. 9 violins were awarded a Certificate of Merrit for Tone. competition winners To continue the horse racing analogy, it is a "show" in the biggest stakes race of the biennial. --flyingtent — flyingtent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm afraid I disagree with almost everything you have said.

For an essay on why not being unusual does indeed suggest lack of notability see WP:MILL which says, in summary, "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest. In other words, something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable".
The article is poorly referenced and fails to establish notability but before nominating I tried to fix that; I was unable to do so because all that exists appears to be adverts, and they are not reliable sources which are independent of the subject. So my point about adverts was simply to state that nothing suitable for adding to the article seems to exist because adverts is all there is, and lack of references most definitely is a notability and verifiability concern. Note also that adverts are referenced in the article; Three of the five references in the article are to A Cavallo Violins and whereas the article uses these to support e.g. "invitation to include two violins at The Art of Sound 2011 Exhibition", the reference itself is quite revealing stating that "all instruments in the show will be available for purchase" - in fact, this is borderline WP:SPAM.
I believe you misunderstand WP:V if you think it is ok that none of the personal information about the subject is referenced. It is being challenged because it cannot be substantiated. "All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" and in this case it appears that it is not.

RichardOSmith (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the following WP:GHITS and apply it. You have wasted enough of my time as well as your own. The article can be improved. Did you even care to notice how long this page has been up? Guess what, not everything can be accomplished with the click of a mouse. Not every verifiable source can be found on google. For example, I will have to physically go to New Hampshire (or hopefully the Library of Congress or the National Archives. They are closer) to find articles that ran in a local newspaper in 1998 on the subject. I will have to go to Ford's Theatre National Historic Site to copy the object book for a violin which the subject restored, a violin that Joshua Bell played at the reopening of the theatre. Strings Magazine ran an article on that in May of 2009. These things, these kinds of things, I intend to do, but they take time. Maybe once the article is more complete, you will start to see more google hits on the subject and we will all be happy.Flyingtent (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:GHITS is more about checking the quality of search results, rather than the quantity - that is, it is not something that can justify there being no usable online sources at all. It is true that some subjects really cannot be sourced from the internet, though these are principally historic and/or non-domestic ones; in this case the total absence of reliable sources is a strong indication that the subject is non-notable. See WP:BURDEN; it was and is the responsibility of the article creator to provide references. If you want to take on that responsibility then great; it should be done with the article moved into your user space and moved back into article space only when sufficiently referenced and notability is established. I really think that would be wasting your time, though, as none of the things you propose to do sounds like it will establish notability: only having local newspaper coverage is generally considered insufficient; notability is not inherited so merely having worked on a violin - however notable you show that violin to be - confers no notability in itself, there needs to be significant coverage about the restorer, not the violin. The Strings magazine article you cite is online; it is very brief and suggests you would be hard-pressed to make a case for even the violin being notable per Knowledge inclusion requirements. Note: I will be away for a few days so will unlikely be able to contribute to this discussion again RichardOSmith (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No claim of inherited notability has been expressed or implied.Flyingtent (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a bunch of strangers reading about me and my family on their computers. Yall kindly shut up and remove me from this site already. Flyingtent? Cute. I know who you are. As for you and these other wkifags, I don't care how much notability can fit on the head of a pin. It's all completely pointless. Eric Caldwell174.152.16.89 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No credible claim of notability. Very poorly cited. I would suggest that original contributor tried again at a later date if/when better cites were available and a clearer case of notability was stated, but for the charming comment above. --Escape Orbit 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Knowledge's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Subject is insane.Flyingtent (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not a reason for deletion. You have also already voted "Keep" above. If you have changed your mind please strike your previous comment and come up with a better reason. --Escape Orbit 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Disclosure: I am the original contributor of this topic and it is my first contribution to wikipedia. I know the subject personally and I find him very interesting. Some wikipedians may be interested in stamp collecting, or obsolete computer languages, or whatever and contribute articles on any such topics they choose. I on the other hand, was dismayed at the scant information available online about a particular artisan, and that is why I chose to make a wikipedia page about Eric. I am also an educator. I work for Fairfax County Public Schools and have been a teacher for six years. As such I have done my best to use WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, etc., but I am afraid this whole debate illustrates some failure in this regard.

Argument: The Subject meets minimum notability requirements WP:CREATIVE 4b and 4c. Minimum requirements are just that. For another example of a living person with minimum notability, see Owen McGee WP:NFOOTBALL. As for establishing consensus, I doubt that this forum can accomplish this so long as participants give opinions and generalizations of guidelines without offering relevant details to support their views.
Conclusion: On the whole, I am personally disappointed with the way this article has been treated in this discussion. I am disappointed with the way policies and guidelines are tossed about without citation of their precedent or prevailing application, especially as nonsequetors and when numerous citations are given in conjunction, forming circular arguments. I am disappointed by the hostile tone, blatant contradiction, advocacy, etc. even by veteran wikipedians. Regardless of the outcome for this topic, I would like to see more constructive debate in the future.Becc144 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand you are disappointed. The difficulty is that Knowledge has set itself a high bar for admission of people in most walks of life. Arguably that is not true in respect of professional sportsmen, but for those in the fine arts, skilled craftspeople, and the like there are clear criteria. Knowledge is not a directory of the nice, the clever, and those who need encouragement and there has to be something more to render them encyclopedic. I have simply not found anything in the article or what has been written about him to show why Mr Caldwell might be the subject of an article other than that he may be famous one day, and that is not enough. There are a lot of enormously talented people; it is a priviledge to meet them but Knowledge is not the place to announce them to the world. If it were, sadly it would be full of articles about people promoting themselves or being promoted by others and it would be devalued. --AJHingston (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oi, the proof of the argument is assumed in the premise and therefore can not refute the claim WP:CREATIVE 4b and 4c. This is petitio principii lol. Is this a debate or not? I would even go so far as to say that the argument, "the subject can not be included because it does not meet inclusion requirements", is an example of hysteron proteron. Flyingtent (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through it if you like, but don't assume that because people disagree they have not understood. Firstly, I do not think that articles by dealers describing Mr Caldwell's work and explaining why people should buy his violins qualify as the sort of independent coverage envisaged in the notability guidelines. That is not accusing the dealers of lying - if they did not think his violins worth buying I assume they would not stock them. But that goes to veritability not notability. Notability looks for evidence that he has been picked out from amongst his fellows as worth writing about in at least two independent sources which are not merely trying to sell his products. Secondly, there is the award - I don't know how many awards have been given and to how many violin makers since Mr Caldwell began making violins, but it must be a great many. Mr Caldwell got one, and it was not a top award. Again, it confirms competence, but not that he is notable amongst his fellow violin makers. Thirdly, the exhibition. There has to be an element of judgement where artists and craftsmen are involved, because for example acceptance of a single piece for permanent exhibition by a major national institution would always weigh heavier than a whole show in an obscure gallery. But Mr Caldwell has neither; two exhibits in a single temporary show of works for sale would not normally be considered sufficient. It is what artists and craftspeople typically do, and does not make them notable. You can disagree, but I really do not think that the notability criteria are met. --AJHingston (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Sadly, I don't think I care anymore. You see, I just spent a great deal of time looking into the real policies that govern this site, those concerning how Wiki Media Foundation spends its money. Let's just say that since you are so loyal a wikist, perhaps you should apply for a job selling wikitrinkets. The pay must be great since they have only a skeleton crew of less than 100 (worldwide) whose sole purpose is to make sure the donations and free content keep coming and lawsuits are kept to a minimum. Yes, they even have a whole marketing staff deployed to maximize volunteer contributions of content. And since it's not for profit, they have to wikispend, on something, right? BTW the use of wiki-anything is, and probably shall remain, forbidden in most academic settings. It really is a wikiscam. Believe what you wikiwant. That is the wikitruth. I wish I had known this before I contributed anything. Oh, I'm sorry you can't see this, but my hand is supine with my midddle and index fingers upstretched, not at you, just in general. God save the Queen, and good night.Flyingtent (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

However, I can't resist pointing out that certain authorities on article deletion are woefully ignorant on the topics they seek to delete. About Violin Society of America competitions: They are unique in the field of violin making in the way each instrument is judged on its own merrit, not in comparison to the field as a whole. As a result top prizes are not even awarded at every biennial in every category. (Not to name drop, but Marylin Wallin the current VSA president has tried for years and never landed a gold medal.) Also, second round judging indicates competence and there are no awards given in that round. About the Art of Sound: Here is what Strings Magazine says, "The list of previous exhibitors reads like an international Who’s Who of violin making...". link Again, thank you the clarification on your opinion. All I can add to it is that ignorance and false assumptions often lead to the wrong conclusions. But here is an entirely different sort of nonsense: "The subject does not have minimum notability because the subject does not have a permanent exhibit in a national gallery". Please, don't make me laugh. In order to preclude the subject, one must first define minimum notability with regard to the particular small niche topic. It is not enough simply to say that the subject is not a living legend. As for one-man shows of violin makers', they are not all that common. Only 2 come to mind. Antonio Stradivari had a one man show in 1987 in Cremona (if memory serves) and Giuseppe Guarneri 'del Gesu' had one in New York about 10 years later. The comparison to artists is equally ludicous. For a good example, look up Artist's shit. Violins by contemporary makers don't sell for six figures at auction. The only 20th century maker to hit that mark in retail sales is Stefano Scarampella. And yet, a can of poo sold for €124,000 at Sotheby's on May 23 2007. Do I need to continue? Well old boy, I'm tired and ready for bed, again, goodnight.Flyingtent (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right! Tell them what you think! Hey AJ, I'm a tradesman not an artist. It makes no difference to me what artsts do. I'm fine thanks. I don't need help or encouragement. What do you need?~e108.127.131.84 (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete It doesn't seem like it meets the notability requirements to me. All he does is make violins, which is nice, but he doesn't seem notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Theking 17825 20:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. I did a Google search, hoping to find news stories (other than lists of violins or performers including his name), but I was unsuccessful. As said by others, simply being a violin maker — even a good violin maker — is not enough to satisfy Knowledge's notability criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 repost of material deleted at previous AfD JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Francisco Flores (Mexican footballer)

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of appearing for the first team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - pet WP:CSD#G4. This article is not significantly different from the one that was previously deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete It's actually shorter, but there's still no sign of what's needed. Too soon. Peridon (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak as G7, one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nikkiey Chawla

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

I will start off by saying that the subject MIGHT be notable, possibly. However, this autobiography is totally unencyclopedic and unacceptable. Much of it consists of rants by the subject on her own past. The rest is unsourced personal anecdotes. The article is entirely unsourced. Nothing worth salvaging. Delete this mess and start over if this person is truly notable. Safiel (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete A few stuff on the interwebs but nothing as i can see to be notable, so delete this mess. King Curtis Gooden (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Author just blanked the page, so I placed a CSD G7. Safiel (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. a/c consensus; o prejudice against an article if he should attain notability DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jakub Hronec

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTY, as he has not yet played in a professional match. Gurt Posh (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - hasn't yet made his professional debut, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - No professional appearances, and no significant coverage equals no notability per WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 16:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. according to the consensusm which seems correct to me also DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Emil Le Giang

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

Proposed deletion was removed without explanation. Article is about a footballer who has only played for U19 sides and more recently in the not-fully-pro second level of Slovakia. I found some coverage of this person in Vietnamese-language sources, but it is pretty routine stuff or coverage of efforts to get him to play for the Vietnamese youth national team. I don't think it would satisfy the GNG and it clearly fails NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and there is indication of significant coverage. He therefore fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 16:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

List of instrumental number ones on the UK Singles Chart

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

What's the significance of instrumentals reaching number one? The first paragraph merely discusses the singles chart itself, the second paragraph is pure trivia. The sources for the tracks themselves just point out that they happened to reach number one and that they just happen to be instrumentals. It is just as much a trivial intersection that a list of number-one novelty songs or number-one songs from films would be. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a trivial intersection. Seems a valid list to me, the first paragraph could perhaps do with trimming a bit though. pablo 10:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep per pablo. seems valid but could use some more clean-up and verification. Dzlife (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep The list is not trivial; it is notable and well-focussed, as the sources demonstrate. Instrumentals are a distinctive type of music and the list is helpful in navigating to articles about notable examples. It perhaps needs expanding and making more global so that other instrumental hits like Green Onions are included. Warden (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
... or Stranger on the Shore which, according to its article, was "the UK's biggest-selling single of 1962, the biggest-selling instrumental single of all time and the first British recording to reach number one on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100". Bizarrely, in the particular chart relied on by this article it never reached number 1. But these are editorial matters. The article sets terms of reference for itself which are notable, and it references its content appropriately It should be allowed to be developed in future. Keep Thincat (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I'm normally wary of articles of the format of List of Xs meeting conditions A, B and C and this slightly strays into the territory of original research, but I wouldn't call instrumental number ones a trivial intersection. I'd be more sceptical about a list of novelty number ones because it's less clear-cut what would count as a novelty song, but there's little room for doubt over what counts as an instrumental single. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

3CX Phone System

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

I've already tried to clean up this article of MOS issues, but I really think that little info can be left without advertising-like tone, in my opinion. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Independent sources are provided and the article certainly doesn't read like advertising to me (at the very least, not very good advertising). I'll try to clean it up a bit more. Several Times (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Multiple reliable sources that show notability are already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The question here is not notability, but the amount of advert-like info I found in the article before the cleanup by Several Times.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Many reliable noteworthy sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.108.121 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's besides the point here.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  - It's notable. It has been rewritten. AfD is not for cleanup. Joe Chill (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Covered in reliable sources. I will also note that I disagree with the assessment that the article read like an advert. If anything, it read more like a product manual complete with a section on configuring the product in earlier versions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Multiple sources found and nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 15:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Adventures in Voice Acting

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

PROD for non-notability was removed, so I'm bringing it here. A claim is made that a Google search proves notability--I don't see it that way, but then, I don't consider this sort of thing a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete – I found one decent reference for the subject , but that's not enough to keep the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - A Google search for adventures in voice acting review turned up multiple reviews in reliable sources . All of those reviews are by sources that have been discussed and determined to be reliable (see Knowledge:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources). I only looked at the first page of hits in that Google search, so there may be more reviews out there. Calathan (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep I added in two links to sites that gave ample coverage. http://www.newsarama.com/tv/080812-AniShortsVoiceActing.html and http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2009-02-22/interview-tony-oliver-on-adventures-in-voice-acting are both reliable sources. Hordes of others as well, but you only need two, so that's all I bothered with. Dream Focus 03:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep A quick internet search shows references that could be used but i cannot be bothered to add them as i am tired, put a cleanup notice on the page instead. King Curtis Gooden (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per sources found and offered. Tag for cleanup. We usually prefer to not delete what can be fixed through regular editing. Schmidt, 06:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
MQS, you know that you don't have to tell me what's in your final sentence (and I'll get on it). I'll take your word for your first. Nomination withdrawn; can someone close this? Drmies (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An American Tail: Fievel's Gold Rush

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

not clear how this meets notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete – Covered in the March 2002 issue of Nintendo Power, covered by IGN , covered by jeuxvideo.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I'll put the citations in, and get more information from 3rd party sources.-SCB '92 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - The game clearly satisfies GNG, it was just unsourced. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Relisting has gotten us no further. I don't see the point in continuing DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Eric Redd

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Does not appear to meet MUSICBIO either. J04n(talk page) 02:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I didn't see notable biography sources on Google and Yahoo aside from social networking sites and and different Eric Redd on a homicide report in Los Angeles.SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
He is on Billboard "Hot Dance Club Play" 08/14/2010, and can be viewed on one the labels http://www.dancemusiclabel.com/artists/eric_redd/, that have released serveral albums over the years and have numerous billboard hits. They only show the top 10 for that week instead of all 100, he is #36 that week. Also, http://www.last.fm/music/Eric+Redd?fb_ref=sharebar&fb_source=email. I'm still getting used to wiki, it is difficult to work with, so I'm sorry if this is formatted wrong. Thesuperhaji (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesuperhaji (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thesuperhaji (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I also added a reference to billboard chart 8/28/2010 Eric Redd Breathe Single #32. Thesuperhaji (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

International Psychic Film Festival

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

No reliable sources found that establish notability of a defunct, one-time film fest held in 1975. Article makes a number of unverifiable exaggerated claims. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete This unreferenced article about a non-notable film festival held once 36 years ago is filled with puffery and pathetic attempts to create inherited notability by name-dropping Charlie Chaplin, astronaut Edgar Mitchell and descendents of William Randolph Hearst. Rather a sad attempt, really. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mike Manning (actor)

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

Subject was a season cast member on the reality television program The Real World: DC, which does not qualify him for his own article. Attempts to inform the editor who created the article about the site's notability guideline were ignored. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Delete per above. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep He's done a bit more than just 16 episodes of The Real World: Washington D.C.. Among his growing body of work we now have him as lead actor in Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver. And with his growing film and television career, the fellow pushes nicely at WP:ENT. The The Real World show's focusing on his sexual orientation, simply ensured that he would get the coverage to meet WP:GNG. As his career is moving forward, we can expect to hear more. Schmidt, 08:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Mike Manning's page should not be deleted just because of the simple fact that his nown for a reality. If people aren't aboul to get famous by doing reality shows than why are the cast of Jersey Shore on wikipedia or why are the Kardashians so famous their only famous because of reality television! Beside Manning has just started and in 2011 he has already acted in 4 movies in which the last one his a main character. it dosen't make sends for the movie to have a page but not the main character. Mike is not just a "reality star" his an actor a model and even a activist and environmentalist. He has just started and he will with no doubt rise in fame fast, and then well just have to make the page all over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagokdasilva1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, August 28, 2011
Comment The casts of Jersey Shore and the Kardashians-related shows have made sufficiently numerous and significant media appearances that go to notability. Mike Manning has not. Such appearances are the basis for notability for entertainers, which is why it is a non-sequitur to argue that if a film has an article, that therefore, ipso facto, anyone in it merits one as well. It is certainly possible that Manning has begun to make appearances that could qualify him for an article, but you did neither yourself nor his article any favors with your recent behavior, which includes deliberately violating numerous Knowledge policies and ignoring my attempts to familiarize you with them. It's unfortunate that you seemed to feel that the rules do not apply to you, and that it fell to other editors to add the sources to the article that helped establish Manning's notability that you refused to. Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, being both silent and adamant when making unhelpful edits does not help his case. Send him to WP:PRIMER where he might get some clue. If he does not, I expect his temp block may be lengthened. Better sources which might have been used in the article to show meeting of WP:GNG for both his growing career, his role in 16 episodes of The Real World: Washington D.C., his lead role in Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver, and his becoming a spokesperson for LGBT issues include Metro Weekly Outsports After Elton Queerty Radar Online He's getting the coverage, it just needs to be properly used and focused. It grieves me that poor edits detract form what could otherwise be a decently encyclopedic article. My hat is off to User:Nightscream for attempts to keep the article centered on topic, and I recognize that it will now need more work from those better skilled at cleanup and sourcing than was the article author. But with a careful eye, correcting the issues are addressable with normal editing. Schmidt, 08:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep the page. Although Manning initially gained public attention for his appearance in Real World, his ongoing activism on behalf of the LGBTI community warrants him retaining a Knowledge entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.31.16 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases

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

Completely unnecessary, and also a misnomer. By definition, Knowledge should only include "notable" House of Lords cases; the list appears more to be a coverage of the most famous cases than those that are notable, since I would suggest that almost all House of Lords cases (even those which produced no groundbreaking new direction for the law) would pass WP:GNG due to the coverage in papers and journals that a decision by England and Wales's highest court inevitably received. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep or merge. The format is superior to that used in List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. Either we list all cases, but use this format as it's more informative, in which case merge to List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. Or we only list those cases with their own article or that are otherwise significant, in which case keep this article, and merge appropriate details from the other one into it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete and merge any missing material to List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases or its sub articles. Per nom, surely all cases, by virtue that they have reached the House of Lords are notable? Regardless of that there appears to be no threshold or definition of the notability needed for inclusion on this page. Thirdly the format that this page takes has already been adopted at some of the sub articles of List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. For example, seeList of House of Lords cases 2007. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep at least until a well- thought through alternative policy has been suggested. notable means worth its own wp article, but entries which are not separately notable can still appear in WP lists. It makes sense to have a fairly short list of the notable cases and separately a much longer list of all the cases. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
SamuelTheGhost, the House of Lords had decided hundreds of thousands of cases. If you think that a list of the notable ones would be fairly short, I'm sorry to burst your bubble. Just about all of them are going to be able to pass WP:GNG, making a list of "notable" cases approximately the same as a list of cases overall. Ironholds (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't just "think that a list of the notable ones would be fairly short", I simply observe by counting that the list we are discussing contains about 55 blue-linked entries. It may be as you imply that at some time in the (remote) future all the "hundreds of thousands of cases" get wp articles, and if so we can reconsider the structure then. Meanwhile I'm effectively suggesting that the title here should be interpreted as List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases which have wikipedia articles SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And most of them don't :p. My point is that it's a misnomer; the purposes of lists are to navigate our internal dynamics (not here), to provide information (not here, really) or to list articles (which is presumably what this falls under). If the purpose here is to list articles, then by definition our List of House of Lords cases is going to be a List of (notable) House of Lords cases. Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Don't we have categories for that? We could call it Category:House of Lords cases :). Incidentally that category already has 200+ cases. Add the 150 or so that are missing into this article and this article starts to look like either another incomplete version of List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases or an indiscriminate collection of information Pit-yacker (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete I was under the understanding that all HOL cases (and now SC cases) are notable not that many have articles because few contribute to law related articles. What we need is some pages along the lines of 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for each year. This is quite a lot of work and there is little incentive to do so when there have been about half a regular dozen contributers to law related articles in my time here. Quickbeam44 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Merge to List of United Kingdom House of Lords cases. Appears duplicative. Sandstein 06:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. One substantive author has concurred in its deletion. Would be happy to user-fy on request. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

4QL (query language)

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

A query language. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:RS - refs given are primary sources AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, weakly. This actually is more intelligible than I expected. I was at least able to grasp from the text that this is an attempt to create a database query language that uses a multi-valued logic. Article is slightly but not insurmountably promotional in tone and referenced only to primary sources. GNews and Scholar find nothing, but the article claims that the creator has a published paper in a minor academic journal. I'll leave it to experts to suggest whether there's a place this might be profitably smerged into. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment The issue is notability, not intelligibility (which as you say is adequate, though not great). A published paper by the creators has no bearing on this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep for now. I just read editor comment at Talk:4QL_(query_language). No one made an effort to establish notability because the requirement was not communicated. --Kvng (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the article. Apparently, I do not quite understand your standards and policies or perhaps disagree with them if apply to my article. Thanks for your time and effort and best regards. Andsz (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete – per author's request. Also, I could not find any reliable secondary sources on the subject aside form the single journal article. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen L. Rush

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

This article fails the general notability guideline and WP:BIO The article looks like it has sources at first blush, but if you look at them, they are all either published by Rush or his company, or they don't mention Rush, except in the comment sections of the various articles and/or blog posts where Rush has posted about himself. The one exception looks to be 'thepolypost', which is a 'look what an alumni is doing' type piece in his alma mater's college newspaper. Also see a related AFD from 2009 on his company: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/For Fuel Freedom, Inc. - MrOllie (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete for lack of meeting GNG: See also Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/For_Fuel_Freedom,_Inc., related delete result from 2009.--Milowent • 05:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks

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

Originally titled "China Stock Frauds." Essentially an attack page, written for the purpose of denigrating the companies contained therein. I've retitled the article, deleted some of the worst stuff here and raised concerns regarding this article a long time ago, but the creators have been unable to rectify them. The content of the article is derived mainly from research reports written by and for short sellers, and seems designed less to be informative than to knock the companies mentioned here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The controversies about the companies have generated enough media attention to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I withheld nominating this article for deletion for months out of that same belief. Unfortunately, this article is not the way to go. Remember that it was originally titled "China stock frauds," and I encountered resistance even with that obvious and necessary renaming. The intent of creating this article was not to explore a controversy but to denigrate certain named stocks, and efforts to improve this article, by myself and another editor, have not been sufficient to exorcise this article of its issues. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Users commenting in this discussion might also want to comment on Knowledge:Articles for deletion/S-Chips Scandals and Knowledge:Articles for deletion/P Chips Frauds, which are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge* Summarize and merge into reverse-split article. The article comes across more of a laundry list of company names than anything else. Concerns and questions have been raised on the talk page with minimal changes resulting. There might be something here, but I don't have the time to really dig it out and the primary author doesn't seem interested beyond getting company names out with vaguely-sourced allegations, POV commentary and WP:SYNTH sections. Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And absolutely concur with Figureofnine's last comment about the sources. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Allegations are not facts. The Wiki is about facts.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Nation-by-nation articles about corporate fraud would be as relevant as having "Allegations of fraud involving recreation golf players." If there are specific newsworthy frauds, they deserve their own articles, like Enron and Bernie Madoff (who do not get lumped in "Allegations of fraud involving US stocks" articles). The present article, though, is an attack on generic "Chinese companies", painting a very broad brush that colors many highly ethical corporations that just happen to share the same national base. Bella the Ball (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. These controversies have significant media attention world wide. Do not merge into reverse merger article because the existence of these companies are not exclusive of that nature. Market participants have recognized the allegations as facts and, thus, significant stock price drops have ocurred. The analogy to "golf players" is incorrect because companies involve many people: directors, employees, shareholders, suppliers, customers, and significant amounts of money have been used in their operation and financing, which have been provided by bankers, investors and even governments. Relevant authorities in North America have issued warnings to investors, launched investigations, ordered trading freezes, among others. Major stock exchanges (NYSE, Nasdaq) have ordered delistings. Censoredchinese (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The article does not seem to be neutral; significant portions have sources of unclear reliability (or no sources at all); the allegations made in the article are in many cases still in dispute (but the article doesn't convey this). Everything that is not solidly substantiated should be removed, and unless what is left is notable in some way, the entire article should go. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Written like a news story, in a non-neutral tone ("The stubbornness of some Western speculators (possibly resulting from a combination of "greater fool" theory and magical thinking) appears to have mirrored the outlook of ordinary Chinese investors, ..."). Possibly this event deserves coverage in Knowledge somehow, but not like this. Sandstein 06:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic with the topic or how it is covered. Szzuk (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Master Photographers Association

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

My searches have not found any direct, detailed, significant coverage of this organisation. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep -- while like TT, I couldn't find any in-depth coverage, I found a lot of references to the awards they give. If their awards are notable, it would seem to follow that they are notable as well. (Yes, I know, WP:NOTINHERITED, but...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you cite some of this coverage of their awards of which you speak? ╟─Treasury Tag►tortfeasor─╢ 17:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
"prestigious MPA awards", "beat off competition from 1600 other Master photographers", "top international prize", "most prestigious awards for photographers in the UK" -- and that's just in the first two pages of GNews hits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Use of the word 'prestigious' doesn't automatically make that "direct, detailed coverage" however. Plus, as you say, notability is not inherited. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope. But it does indicate to me that there very likely is coverage out there somewhere that I'm not seeing at the top of the Google hits. Hopefully, someone on that side of the pond will know which sources to check out to fill in the blanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
So until that happens, you're basically saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES? ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
More like WP:GIVENTHESOURCESWEDOHAVEWEKNOWTHEREMUSTBEBETTERONESOUTTHEREMAYBEOFFLINE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't found any in-depth coverage yet. To help weed out "is registered as Master Photographer by..." type results I searched for "Master Photographers Association" 1952 in Google books, which yielded only a handful of results, none of them significant.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and the sourcing for the awards which might be sort of an indirect way to establish notability are thin at best. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

TOCHKA.net

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

This is a non-notable website, a links site, apparently in the Ukraine. The references are to an internal site of its parent company, a directory listing, and to a press release announcing that an editor had been hired. Contested speedy deletion, not mine. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Delete - Perhaps it's notable in Ukraine, but I didn't see any English websites on a Yahoo! and Google that were notable.SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine is not a banana republic. If it's notable there then it's notable. Also, supersources don't have to be in English. More discussion is needed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep It seems like a very, very popular site in the Ukraine. Quick google search returns millions of results even using the English Google, and Google News shows hundreds of other news sites referring to TOCHKA.net. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do any of the hits even look like significant coverage? Or are they just links to a links site? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

TOCHKA.net lets you buy train tickets, Tochka.net got exclusive rights to the royal wedding photos, tochka.net launched video service, auto.tochka.net hosts a virtual auto show. Korrespondent uses Tochka.net as a source . --Odie5533 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bahram Nouraei

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

Created by a promotional SPA. Article was nominated for speedy deletion and the SPA removed the tags, which led to him being blocked. However, while the content is excessively promotional, the article makes a credible assertion of significance and the discography is consistent with a signed artist. I expect that this AFD will likely close as delete but I am not comfortable speedying the article without peer review. causa sui (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: Sources, if they are available, are likely to be in the Persian language. causa sui (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No comment: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bahram nouraei. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. References are merely self-published or blogs. No reliable independent sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete: unsourced, notability not established, written like an advertising. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep, while noting that improvements are needed according to the consensus here PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Empty Force

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

This article lacks significant independent sources and is about a topic of dubious notability. The very existence of such a force is questionable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

keep The existence of such a force might be highly questionable, scientifically, but there does appear to be some amount of discussion in martial arts circles. A brief google search found a book, articles, and a few supposed "demonstration videos" on youtube as well. I suspect more sources exist, but are in Chinese or Korean or under a different name (Translating Martial Arts concepts from Chinese can be tricky and lead to myriad names for the same thing, see how Chi is sometimes spelled Qi, Khi, Ki, Ji and so on). Appears to be a notable concept in Tai Chi and the idea of Chi/Qi. Heck it even pops up in a 70s-style kung fu exploitation game book I own (Ninjas and Superspies). If it's made it that far, it's met the threshold of cultural assimilation, "true" in the Western objective sense or not. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this article gives no reliable and independent sources that show this force exists. I've seen many martial artists claim to have this power, but I've never seen one successfully demonstrate it on someone not affiliated with the practioner. If reliable and independent sources can be found and added, then I do think this article might be kept even though its existence is unproven. By independent sources I don't mean debates over whether so-and-so can do this. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Papaaursa: Knowledge does not require proof, only notability. We have articles on many things that are demonstrably false, like Orgonne Energy, but are still notable. The fact alone that you have seen "many martial artists claim this power" indicates it has a place in culture. I'll look for some reliable sources but a cursory google search indicated at least one book and many other hits. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've also seen a number of martial arts programs that claim to make you a killing machine in 1 or 2 days and met many martial artists that think their black belt makes them a world beating fighter--I don't think any of those are notable either. The problem is that the martial arts are full of bogus claims and I hate to support one with no real evidence that it exists. I also agree with the post below that the article is biased in tone. However, in my previous post I did say it's possible to have an article on something that may not exist and this may well be one of those cases. The article needs to be made neutral in tone and improved, but probably can be fixed to meet WIkipedia's notability standards. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be a popular tai chi topic. However, this article is one-sided and seems to imply the force exists when there's no scientific evidence of it. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Noel Gillespie

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

Non-notable assistant coach (hate to do this to a fellow Milwaukeean, but fair is fair). Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep, based solely on the fact that he's an NBA assistant coach, not just any assistant coach. I'm not finding a whole lot of coverage from outside NBA.com, but he's discussed a little bit in the book 07 Seconds or Less, and I see at least a few newspaper mentions. Zagalejo^^^ 02:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

reply "a few newspaper mentions" does not constitute the requisite substantial coverage! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I said weak keep. Come what may. Zagalejo^^^ 22:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG with only trivial coverage from independent sources. Not much to objectively write about without sources existing. —Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Bagumba Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

DeleGate (networking)

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

Totally unsourced advertisement for non-notable website. Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am closing this. No need for AfD. It is direct CopyVio and has been resubmitted as a G12 since there's not really anything to discuss about removing copyvios. ;-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

CopyVio resolved, reinstated AfD tagging and added AfD transclude template back to this page. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I removed all infringing text as of 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC) ---Adgordo (talk)
Please note, it is being proposed for deletion due to non-notable nature of the product/website/company - as well as it serving only advertising purposes (proving notability may help override this one). The Speedy Deletion request for copyright violation has been removed/ended. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
~~LEANING Delete:~~ (UNDECIDED 03:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)) Though I am fond of both the company and software (I run OS/2, and they and one other company are the only ones who make such software for OS/2 (and other platforms)), I am not sure if there's anything notable in that. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 21:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If Squid gets an article, should DeleGate not? --Adgordo 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Other articles are not proof of notability of this article. Also, please note that the Squid page references numerous other websites. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep This seems to indicate that the website is somewhat notable. References certainly wouldn't hurt. --Kvng (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'd change to a weak keep as well, if cites can be dug out of those and used in the article. I may look into this in the next few days and see if I can help out. ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 03:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris Desino

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources listed are WP:SPS and WP:ROUTINE. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with nom. I can find a few references that mention him in passing, but they are all routine and none have the significant coverage that is required to pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Desino

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources listed are WP:SPS and WP:ROUTINE. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep - the article hints at Robert Desino being a top level rower with the statement that they were selected to the US team, and were training for the Olympics. According to FISA, the official world governing body for the sport of rowing, Desino competed in the the 1997 World Championships. This represents competing at the highest level of competition for rowing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Whpq. For rowing, the World Rowing Championships are Olympic-equivalent in level, so the subject meets the generally acceptable standards for WP:NSPORTS - if only just on current evidence. PWilkinson (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Meets WP:NSPORTS. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sauce

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

Fails WP:RS (no sources at all) and WP:V. The only apparently usable source I could find in a Google search (To the Bitter End: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance by Chris Leuchars) placed the Battle of Sauce in 1866 — though this could very possibly have been a different battle in the same place. If the current content of the article is all the info there is, I'd recommend finding at least one reliable source and then incorporating the verifiable material into another article dealing with the wider conflict of which this battle was a part. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The name gets a lot of hits, but they're about a different battle. I don't see any evidence that this happened. If no sources are found, the other articles created by this user should also be examined. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep or merge I just read pages 134-5-6 of the above mentioned book and the battle described there is indeed another battle than the one meant here. The Spanish article Invasión Luso-Brasileña, which is a FA, does mention this battle in 1916 and they link there to an article for it: Batalla de Sauce (1816), which however doesn't say much more than this one here. IMO this article can be either kept and tagged for citations and need of expansion, or it can be merged with Luso-Brazilian invasion, which needs expansion anyway, although at this stage, I don't see how it could fit there without creating undue weight. Hoverfish Talk 22:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually there are more battles of this campaign that have articles: see Template:Luso-Brazilian invasion. Hoverfish Talk 22:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  - "It has an article on another-language Knowledge" is not a good argument for keeping, since that article is also totally unsourced and I couldn't find sources in that article's language, either. The problem here is not that the article is bad. The problem is that we have absolutely no proof that the battle ever happened. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware of the problem of sources in the spanish wikipedia, as it often discourages me from translating articles we need here. The battle of Sauce seems to have happened indeed. Here is one mention of it I just found online . I should get myself some notable book of Uruguayan History, I guess. I will add the citacion in the article asap. Hoverfish Talk 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  - I should mention here that I moved the article to Battle of Sauce (1816) to distinguish it from the 1866 battle. Hoverfish Talk 22:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  - I also made a multiple merge proposal for all related battle articles, including this one, to Luso-Brazilian invasion. This proposal is not meant to bypass any decision taken here. Hoverfish Talk 13:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep or merge per Hoverfish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm quoting the nominator: If the current content of the article is all the info there is, I'd recommend finding at least one reliable source and then incorporating the verifiable material into another article dealing with the wider conflict of which this battle was a part. - Well, at least one reliable source has been found, so there seems to be a pretty clear consensus towards a merge. Any other opinions? Hoverfish Talk 14:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - After cursory review, I can't find any English language RS for this thing. NickCT (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If the concern here is verifiability, I have translated the references in the article. Hoverfish Talk 17:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

*Keep Sources don't need to be in English.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Talk 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please vote only once. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

*Keep If relisting means we must vote again, I repeat my keep here. Hoverfish Talk 17:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, relisting does not mean you vote again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I find it to be relevant enough and besides, as Dr. Blofeld points out, references do not have to be in English, bearing in mind that it's an important fact in local Uruguayan history and most of the references, if not all of them, are probably in Spanish or Portuguese. --Góngora (Talk) 22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep All battles are notable, if they are real battles and not mere engagements. The lack of sources in English is caused by systemic bias Cambalachero (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Anurag Anand

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

Fails WP:AUTH Vanadus (talk | contribs) 17:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

KEEP - The biographical article is for an author who has five published books under his belt. A name search on google provides enough information about the author and his works. His books are available for purchase at all leading retail sites. I am the creator of the article.SwisterTwister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

IP user forged SwisterTwister's signature. Sp33dyphil 09:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

KEEP - This is a biographical article of an author whose work is a national bestseller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandabhishek123 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User Anandabhishek123 had only made 7 edits. Sp33dyphil 09:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete no indication that books are notable, evident through the absense of book articles. Having written books doesn't guarantee a WP bio. Fails WP:AUTH Sp33dyphil 09:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Can't see any obvious evidence of notability. NickCT (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP - An author is not necessarily famous only if his works are being read in the United States or Europe. The article talks about an extremely well known Indian author and citations of his work are available in leading Indian Dailies on the internet - The Times of India, Hindustan Times, DNA etc. All it needs in the right intent and will to look. User:ATUL (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.93.187 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ISKCON Guru System

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

This is a research paper, and is OR. The subject has no notability. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete ISKCON is an organization that promotes an alternative form of Hindu worship, which itself is a good reason to consider it dubious (WP:RNPOV). The article has few independent sources. But that is not very surprising as ISKCON is a obscure organisation and not much independent research has been done about it. The organisation publishes its own books, papers and probably has it own very journal! Those sources does not satisfy WP:SPS. Vote to delete. — Fιηεmαηη 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Article needs a lot of work but the subject is clearly notable. ISKCON is a well-researched religious institution (especially considering its size). The topic of ISKCON guru is especially well covered in academic works. See for example Gaura79 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for finding this book. ISCKON is well researched - but for all the negative reasons. The book description suffices to show the dubious nature of the organization. There have been child abuse scandals, women's right issues and so on. I am not saying that we should have not have an article on ISCKON because of the scandal issues associated with it. But the article would have to be entirely rewritten to adhere to a NPOV. I don't think many people would be willing to do that. Again, I am sure that it would be vandalized, wasting the time of a lot of people. At most the article should be merged with the main ISCKON article. — Fιηεmαηη 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging with the main ISKCON article doesn't make sense because the ISKCON guru subject is a well-covered one. There're plenty of RS which discuss it in detail so there's more than enough material for a standalone article. Whether the whole article or parts of it is OR should be discussed on the article's talk page. Even in its present state, the article's content is supported by several RS. I don't see any valid reasons to delete or merge it. "ISCKON is well researched - but for all the negative reasons" - can't agree with you on that. Try reading those books and other scholarly works on ISKCON and you will see that the reasons that motivated western scholars to study ISKCON were mainly positive.Gaura79 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep As per Gaura79. ISKCON is notable not only as a branch of modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but also as an important NRM and movement within Neohinduism. ISKCON's institutions are not unresearched or nonnotable. Finemann's opinion that ISKCON is "dubious" etc. is irrelevant to the question of notability, and is is therefore, needless to say, totallt beside the point. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Although ISKCON is notable, this article is OR, and is not notable, and does not meet Wiki criteria for an article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment I never said that the article should be deleted because of ISCKON's dubious nature. I also asserted that ISCKON is notable. What I said was that it would be very difficult to write an article about ISCKON that adheres to a NPOV. And realize that much of the ISCKON propaganda deviates from the standard Hindu guidelines. My concern is about having an article about a possibly inflammatory topic. — Fιnεmαnn 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply That is not my concern. The issue why this article should be deleted is that it is Original Research, and a Coatrack. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is an essay that is OR, specifically because of this, it would not be appropriate to merge it with the larger ISKCON article. While some info in this article might be real, and cites sources - it is a COATRACK - and OR. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Needs work to improve not deletion.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Reply This article list many references, but none deal with the subject that this article is attempting to articulate. That makes this article Original Research and a Coatrack. While there is information in the article relevant to ISKCON, a merge would be UNDUE. Unless there are some reliable sources that state why and how this subject is notable and thus deserving its own article; it should be deleted or moved to a userfied page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess you've never verified the refererences in the article. Because if you would, you would find out, for example, that three chapters in the book Shinn, Larry (1987). The Dark Lord: Cult Images and the Hare Krishnas in America. Philadelphia: Westminster Press deal with the subject of Guru in ISKCON. And so is the ninth chapter in Rochford, E. Burke (1985). Hare Krishna in America. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. You could also check another Rochford's monograph.Gaura79 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, these sources exist. It is the article that is Original Research/Coatrack. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

These sources are in the article, so your claim that "This article list many references, but none deal with the subject that this article is attempting to articulate" is unsubstantiated.Gaura79 (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

While there are sources, that does not make the article notable. This article is a COATRACK for a bunch of different ISKCON related subjects which might make for a good essay, but is OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"This article is a COATRACK for a bunch of different ISKCON related subjects" - after reading the article I just can't agree with you. It deals with institution of guru in ISKCON, it's history and controversies.Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)