Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 2 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaped (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage for this film. No one that had a part in the film has an article. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The thing about IMDB is that a lot of films can get added that have dubious or no notability, which is why it's considered to be a trivial source. Users can add movies into the database and while they do have requirements for adding, I'm honestly not sure how much checking they actually do as far as the various requirements go or how far those requirements can be stretched.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
  • IMDB does not care anything about "notable". They simply require that a film being added can be confirmed by their staff as having screened publically somewhere, and even a minor film festival can be enough. It can however, be a good jumping off point for advanced searches. Schmidt, 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Gin X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by single purpose account in May 2011. Been tagged for notability and sources since then. I have looked for sources and have found only SPS and other unreliable source. Fails, WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER, and WP:BIO. The article asserts two awards. The Southern Entertainmant awards for 2011 do not list the filmmaker nor her film. and the claimed Duval Diamond Awards is acknowledged only in non-RS such as Twitter and Facebook. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete  The article has unsourced BLP claims.  There is a resume but no movie credits at www.imdb.com.  The only obvious sources I saw on the first few pages of a Google search were social networking sites that are not wp:reliable.  Fails WP:V and WP:GNG, and there is no evidence of satisfying any SNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete without prejudice towards a sourced recreation. No one has found any reliable sources, nor are any cited in the article, but there is some discussion that they might exist. If they can be found, they article maybe recreated. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mirone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows that this software is notable. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete; according to this sentence of the article, "The code is written in MATLAB", it cannot be an independent software and probably it is a simple program made by a user. There were no sources that confirms it's notable. ●Mehran ● 05:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This article shows that it is far from a simple program, nor do I agree that MATLAB cannot be used to write other applications.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation  I'm not that interested in analyzing 569,000 Google hits for in order to induce the absence of notability, when there are no sources in the article and all of the material fails WP:V.  Just remove the article, and if someone wants to write a new article with sources, then they should be encouraged to do so.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. somewhat to my surprise, it is or was a major brand; the article needs expansion;, similar to the slightly fuller article on Corian Since Solid surface covers a very wide range of materials it's not a suitable merge, and I think we would usually keep articles on well known brands separate. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Avonite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, so here we have an article that no-one really thinks ought to exist. Instead, it is merely a non-notable proprietory brand name and hence only serves an an advert rather than conveying useful material; it was previously only de-PRODed in order to propose a merge (later rejected). No independent sources. - Jarry1250  00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have worked professionally with solid surface materials similar to Avonite for many years, although I derive very little income from this specific brand. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Good job finding sourcing. You've convinced me that Avonite belongs in WP, although I suspect that it belongs within the Solid surface article, rather than a freestanding one, perhaps within a section providing capsule summaries of the established brands with their distinctive elements. Then again, if it turns out that there is enough material to justify its own encyclopedia entry (while avoid becoming a how-to manual), I would be happy to get behind that. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Grant Dunlop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable semi-professional or amateur footballer who has never played in a fully professional league and therefore does not meet the criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL. The article does not assert notability, has a somewhat inappropriate tone and all major edits have been made by one user who has not edited any other articles. Keresaspa (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability). Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hood (Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No links on Google for "Brian Shaffer" "the hood" "bill strong" Unremarkable series. SpeakFree (contribs) 22:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: "The fist book, Innocennt, will most likely be realesed in February 2012 and will then be followed by the second book, the Hood, and then the third book, Guilty." SL93 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book hasn't been released yet, so is pretty obviously a promotional attempt by the article creator. Doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. I'm going to assume that the article creator is unaware of the WP:ADVERT policy, but it'd be worth just dropping him a note to let him know about all of this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

InSight Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable hoax article; references all dead links, no Google results except the article itself and another Knowledge article which has been edited since it was created. GW… 22:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am uncertain that this is a hoax. I'm not sure what the deal is with the JPL pages, but all of the content of this article matches the Geophysical Monitoring Station (GEMS) project that was one of the Discovery Program finalists (the others are TiME and CHopper). I can't find a link substantiating that GEMS had a name change, but I wouldn't consider that out of the question either. It may very well be that the mission's JPL site is currently down; in any case, if this is a renamed GEMS, there's no shortage of other sources available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Keep. Appears the problems with insight.jpl.nasa.gov were, in fact, temporary. This is the renamed GEMS proposed mission, and so is most certainly not a hoax. Plenty of other sources are available under the previous name, as that is the one that was used up to and including the Discovery Program finalists' announcement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Withdrawn, now sufficient evidence has been presented that this is not a hoax. The article does need significant cleanup work though. --GW… 09:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete unless something shows up soon. As I wrote on Talk:InSight Mission:

I can find no sign of this mission even existing:
• Searching Google for "Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport" shows this article and nothing else.
• The NASA links used as references by the article are all either inaccessible mission pages or pages for people that don't mention this mission.
• All images were uploaded to Commons by this same new user.
• Project isn't mentioned in the Discovery Program article.

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Curt roland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor actor. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. reddogsix (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweater Tuesday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school event Breawycker (talk to me!) 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Cisco SSG-6510 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Texas Tech Alumni Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG without multiple third party references. The book cited was published by the university and can hardly be considered intellectually independent. Otherwise, all of the sources are either published by the university or the alumni association. TM 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Agree with nom that the lack of third party sources (edit: there's a single article in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. See WP:N: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.) fail to establish notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The only first-party reference in the article is from Texas Techsan, a Texas Tech Alumni Association publication. The Texas Tech Alumni Association is an independent organization affiliated with Texas Tech University according to the organization's bylaws (Article I, Section 2). As the organisation is independent from Texas Tech University, any Texas Tech University publication would be a third-party reference. Regardless, The First Thirty Years: a History of Texas Technological College was published in 1956, only since 1971 has Texas Tech Press (now the Texas Tech University Press) been the publishing office for Texas Tech University (Ref). The aforementioned book along with the references from Handbook of Texas , and the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, give the article multiple third-party references, the issue in question for this AfD nomination. NThomas (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how the Texas Tech Alumni Association, Texas Tech University, and the Texas Tech University Press could be considered "Independent of the subject" as required by WP:N. Certainly, coverage in these closely related publications isn't an indication of the notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the specifics of TTAA, but wouldn't most alumni associations be somewhat independent of their parent institution? They might have official recognition, have an office on campus, but usually they are run by alumni and independent of the university/college administration. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The technical details of organizational independence are beside the point: one cannot say that these are independent fo each other for the purpose of WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Reading through WP:N again, as two separate organizations, Texas Tech Press prior to 1971 would still be a third-party reference to Texas Tech Alumni Association. NThomas (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I've already listed the rational why the Texas Tech Alumni Association is, and Texas Tech Press was until 1971, independent from the university. NThomas (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Nowhere here in the Texas Handbook article you cite does it mention anything about the alumni association. It should be removed from the article no matter what because it does not even support the sentence it supposedly cites.--TM 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Handbook of Texas article cites the year that Texas Technological College was renamed Texas Tech University since the first references excludes the year the name changed. Maybe that citation would benefit from the addition of the quote parameter? NThomas (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The citation has absolutely nothing to do with the alumni association and should not be described as a source for the TTAA.--TM 05:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. That leaves only 1 source that is not connected to the university. --GrapedApe (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As NThomas has explained above, that is debatable. It is certainly borderline, but the University itself is indeed independent of the alumni association. Falcon8765 21:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per NThomas, several independent sources exist satisfying notability requirements. Additionally, playing the main role in the difficult process of changing the name of the university also further implies notability. Falcon8765 21:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There is more usable, non-duplicated material here than there was the first time this went through AfD. I do think that material from the university can be considered independent of the alumni association, and I think that enough reliable sourcing has been shown to sustain this article against a non-notability finding; in any event, this material (including the history of the organization, its facilities, and its "services") is certainly appropriate for inclusion somewhere in the articles about Texas Tech. On a general note, it may be true that every university has an alumni organization, but that doesn't make them unworthy of coverage. For me, the question in these alumni association AfDs is whether there's enough such material to justify a separate article or whether coverage of the organization fits more comfortably within a more general article or articles. In this case, I don't have any real problem with the separate article standing on its own, but a thoughtful merger could be considered, as long as that merger preserves the edit history and doesn't result in the disappearance of substantial valuable content. That could be a subject for editorial discussion after AfD. On one point, I do agree with the nominator: I didn't see support in the cited sources to which we have online access (such as Texas Handbook) for the proposition that the alumni association played a role in the choice to keep "Tech" in the university name. I'd like to see better inline citations for that assertion. But as noted above, I think there's enough sourced content on other points to justify the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. What a discussion. Very good arguments by Neutralhomer. I want to point out something in this close that no one mentioned; although it did not affect this close. Out of the 5 sources, 2 were not sources but simply external links, 2 were primary sources to the schools paper (Lanthorn), and the last one doesn't support the sentence it cites. The consensus appears to be to merge to Grand_Valley_State_University#Media. However, upon reviewing the target, it appears all mergable content is already there; namely the first two sentences. The remaining sentences in the first paragraph are clearly promotional and the last paragraph doesn't really say anything about the subject and is actually synthesis. So the result of this discussion is delete.

Also, as it appears that WCKS has not nor has ever been a registered callsign, I have declined the option of a redirect. WCKS should link to the Georgia radio station and WCKS (college radio) would be an implausible redirect. Perhaps a note at the top of the Georgia radio station could say "See also" but I'll leave that up to whomever is willing to take it under consideration. v/r - TP 00:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WCKS (college radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

US student-run college radio station, which operated an unlicensed low-powered carrier current transmission starting in the 1990's and more recently an internet radio service. I could not find reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:ORG, and such unlicensed stations have not been granted the de facto notability given licensed broadcasters which originate some of their programming. Edison (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't a radio station, it's web audio streaming. Licensed radio stations generally enjoy a presumption of notability but this isn't the case here. No indication of how this might be notable. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: I reluctantly support the deletion of this article because carrier current stations do not share the same notability as FM, AM, and LPFM radio stations (as well as low-power and full-power TV stations), as they don't possess an FCC license (one is not required for carrier current). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  This topic is covered at Grand_Valley_State_University#Media and it appears that it will continue to be covered there.  A delete !vote posits that both the material and the redirect are objectionable, which I think is inconsistent with having the topic covered in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep  This ref shows that the organization is recognized by the university.  Although I think wp:notability exists for this organization, and recommend a keep result for AfD, that does not mean that we are required to have a stand-alone article, especially given the current state of the article.  This topic is covered at Grand_Valley_State_University#Media.  The problem with recommending a merge there is that that is a large article, and it appears that the Media section needs to be split in order to add more material about the student radio station.  So in addition to recommending a keep AfD result, I recommend as an editoral decision a Merge to a to-be-created article, Media at Grand Valley State University.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
We aren't discussing the Media section of the main article on this university, we are discussing this dedicated article on the station. It does not meet notability guidelines. There isn't anything sourceable in the article so there isn't much to merge. I would opposed to create another article on media at this university, there just isn't sufficient content to warrant splitting out the media section--RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with RadioFan, it isn't notable enough for it's own article, it isn't notable enough for a "group article" either. Oppose to creating the proposed article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see you give any reason for deletion except that it is (or was) a carrier current radio station with no FCC license, which is not actually one of our guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it is. This page covers all notability for TV and Radio Stations and has a section on carrier currents. To save you the time: "Unlicensed stations - Stations that do not require a license to operate, such as some "carrier current" stations limited to the boundaries of a college campus are not presumed notable, but could be covered in an article about the school. Pirate broadcasters, while not presumed notable, can have notability conferred on them by meeting WP:CORP standards." So, there you have it. Not notable, might be notable under WP:CORP, but that is tough to make happen and I have yet to see it happen. Please learn the rules of Knowledge, will ya? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article states, "In logic..., a fallacy is...an incorrect argumentation... By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument... Among such devices...are: making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem)...  Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you agree that there is a large semantic difference in meaning between "not presumed notable" and "presumed not notable"?
  • Do you agree that there is yet another large semantic step between "presumed not notable" and concluding that a topic is "not notable"?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't agree, because as I said below, I have dug into the recesses of the FCC website and can not find the application mentioned in the news article. With that, I find this station doesn't have a notability leg to stand on (and it never did to be honest). There isn't any semantics here, the article simply is not notable.- Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment
  1. The main document regarding notability is WP:Notability commonly known as WP:N.  WP:N has only one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice".
  2. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline which is one path to determining that a topic is "worthy of notice".
  3. WP:CORP is an SNG which, as per the lede in WP:N, is an alternative guideline to define whether a topic is "worthy of notice".
  4. WP:Notability (TV and radio stations) is an alternative essay to define whether or not a topic is "worthy of notice", but is not recognized as such by WP:N.  An essay may be no more than one person's opinion.  An essay is neither a guideline nor a policy.
  5. To my knowledge, the absence of notability is not defined at Knowledge, it is the set left after removing topics that are "worthy of notice".  In particular, such a claim requires evidence that WP:GNG is not satisfied, and in this case would also require evidence that WP:CORP is not satisfied.
  6. WP:N is a guideline to decide if we should have a stand-alone article on Knowledge, deletion is determined by WP:Deletion policy.
  7. WP:ATD, "Alternatives to deletion", is a part of WP:Deletion policy in which the point is that we avoid deleting material when there are alternatives."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment before this degrades into further analysis of logical fallacies, semantics and personal reflections on Knowledge's guidelines and policy on notability.... The above linked notability guidelines tell us what is generally notable, they do not tell us what is not notable. That is determined by consensus, here, in this AFD. Right now the consensus is that this subject does not rise to the level described in these notability guidelines. Yes, it is not worthy of notice. Several participants have anticipated the outcome and are thinking of next steps as you note. While alternatives to deletion do exist, I and others do not think they are appropriate here. This article should be deleted outright, not merged. I'm not seeing how a even a single sentence on the subject in the article on the university could be adequately sourced. --RadioFan (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Our position seems to be close, yet you want to delete the good faith edits in the edit history, and you want to delete the redirect.  In addition to previously cited sources, we know that the station once held an FCC license, so we know that there is information about the station that is not currently cited.  What you might avoid with a delete is negotiating with the editors at Grand Valley State University about how to merge, but that is not actually a policy reason to delete an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me try and get this through to you: There was never an FCC license for this station and the school isn't applying for any licenses for this station at this time. Please, for the love of all that is Holy, stop saying there was or is a license for this station when there isn't a record of one. To be honest, I can't find a record of the application that is mentioned in the articles and I have dug into the recesses of the FCC website (where no one dares go) and can find nothing. At this point, I can't confirm the application mentioned ever existed outside that news article. With that said, that makes the notability (if there was ever any to begin with) something like negative zero at this point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I dont think our position is close as I see no valid reason to keep this article. No other participant in this discussion does either. This includes editors with years of experience maintaining radio station articles. I'd gladly change my !vote to keep if the claim that this station had been previously licensed and had that license yanked can be properly sourced.--RadioFan (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As noted above, I have been digging in the recesses of the FCC database (I think I found Jimmy Hoffa in there) and going back to 1979, when the FCC started digitizing their records, the applications filed for stations are ones that have been on the air for years. WGVS-FM (on since before 1979), WGVU-FM (on since before 1983, but applications going back to 1980), WGVU (AM) (on since 1922), WGVS (AM) (on since 1926), WGVU-TV (on since 1972), and WGVK (on since 1984) are the only stations that Grand Valley State University has ever applied for applications for. No others, no dead applications back in 2009 or before. There are no new applications in the FCC database for any other stations other than the ones mention. I haven't found any constuction permits applied for by the school, be them expired, active or otherwise. The application for this station never existed. I have to find that whatever was written in the Grand Valley Lanthorn in April 2009 was either a mistake or completely incorrect and there isn't any evidence in the FCC database (and they don't throw anything away or delete anything...even old radio stations that were "deleted" are just moved to another folder) of any applications for any stations...ever. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If Grand Valley does own other stations, perhaps a brief mention of WCKS in the WGVU-FM one would work (in its own section) would suffice. WCKS could redirect to it. I know that the two are unrelated except for the Grand Valley State connection, but I've seen similar things on other articles of this nature. Meanwhile, the WCKS article is too weak to stand on its own.--Fightingirish (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
There is a proposal under the break to merge the "WCKS" article to the Grand Valley State University page as a subsection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete- per NeutralHomer's excellent research verifying that this radio station is not notable. Reyk YO! 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There is history with student radio at GVSU. WSRX was the previous student radio station, but now belongs to First Assembly Ministries in Florida. WCKS at one time was the AM station at GVSU. However, I am having an issue locating its former frequency. Maybe this information should at least be moved to the Grand Valley State University page under the media section.Demhem (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this. Demhem (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If previous stations were actually FCC licensed or more notable, maybe it would be more logical to discuss this in the appropriate section of the school's article? It doesn't seem very sensible that, because previous radio stations were FCC licensed, this newer unlicensed student run one should inherit that notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, Demhem, there was never a "WCKS" owned by Grand Valley State University. WSRX is the former callsign of WGVU-FM. That station has been on the air since before 1983, not '98 or '99. Before 1983. There is a difference. "WCKS", even from the link provided, is a "Carrier current and Internet student radio for GVSU" and not "registered/licensed with FCC". Quoting from the Michiguide link you provided. So, in other words, the only stations that have ever existed in Allendale, Michigan are WGVU-FM, which is NPR not college music, nothing associated with the current WSRX and nothing from 1998 or 1999. There were never any applications filed for stations during that time. We go by the Federal Communications Commission, not a website from Michigan that is full of original research. Sorry, but "WCKS" doesn't exist in the FCC database...never has under any other name. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
@Yaksar: The internet station wouldn't inherit that notability because they are seperate stations and there aren't any reliable third party sources to back up the claim that any "WCKS" programming ever aired on WSRX (now WGVU-FM)...and the school's newspaper definitely doesn't cut it as a "reliable third party source" at this point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer, did you check to see if there was an application in Grand Rapids, Michigan for this station? The Meijer Public Broadcast Center is downtown, and they might be planning on having the station broadcast from the GVSU downtown campus. Or possibly even Jenison, Michigan, seeing as part of the campus actually lies in Georgetown township, which is a Jenison mailing address. Demhem (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, in Jenison, Michigan, there is only a "deleted" station WONX 1020, that had been there since before 1978. There was an application in 2003 in Jenison, but that was going to Radio Assist Ministry, Inc. (they have a slew of these all over the country, they do religious programming), but it was never acted upon. As for the "Meijer Public Broadcast Center", I found zero applications in that name. In Grand Rapids, I am finding 5 digital translator (television) applications for WGVU-TV in Grand Rapids in 2011, a couple for the digital signal for WGVU-DT back in 2003 and 2004, a license renewal for WGVU-TV in 1988, and some standard applications for the other Grand Rapids commercial radio stations and television stations. That was out of 660 applications for "Grand Rapids, Michigan" going back to 1978 (when the FCC started computerizing their records). Nothing for "Meijer Public Broadcast Center" and nothing for Grand Valley State University outside of the aforementioned WGVU-TV applications. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment and Proposal: I would have no problem with a merge into the Grand Valley State University article as User:Pdcook suggested above. I think it would benefit all. I propose the article be merged into the Grand Valley State University article posthaste with this AfD closed as "Merged" simultaneously. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment 'The notability of student groups operating like a radio station without actually broadcasting over the air using methods such as carrier current or internet streaming has come up before. Some actually do have articles but it's because they've received some notice outside of campus. Even the coverage by the campus newspaper isn't really that great here. There are wikipedia articles on internet only stations and campus based carrier current ones. What sets them apart is someone who is not a part of that organization or campus took notice and wrote about them. For example WTBU is a carrier current station at Boston University that received some coverage in the New York Times so a dedicated article is merited there.--RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Grand_Valley_State_University#Media. If it was a licensed FCC station, the de facto rule is that we'd keep it because it presumably will meet WP:ORG. Its not, so dropping that presumption, I searched to see if there is coverage to show it meets WP:ORG. There is not, and the two keep !votes to date, from Unscintilating and Denham, don't show otherwise.--Milowent • 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete If this were an FCC-licensed station, it would be a strong keep. Appears as if it is just a webcaster (and maybe a carrier current station) and a rather obscure one at that. Plus, it only has three sentences. Not much of a case for keeping it. At least it doesn't have an extensive list of staffers and faculty advisors from the past 20 years like some articles I've seen. --Fightingirish (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Grand_Valley_State_University (or Grand_Valley_State_University#Media) --DGaw (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Omar Gaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article shows no proof that the player has played at a notable level .. player fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I probably should have done some research before proposing for AfD. His SoccerWay profile indicates that he has made plenty of appearances for Zamalek's first team, as such, player is notable. Not sure if an admin can delete this AfD or what the procedure is but I withdraw the request! TonyStarks (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

IES Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We can interpret the notability guideline and make exceptions whenever there is consensus to do so, but we do not make excepts to WP:Verifiability; there have to be some sources to verify the material beyond personal knowledge. Such sources might well meet the GNG also, but we have to have them. When you can find them, you can rewrite the article using them. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

BUME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a neologism; cannot find any reliable, secondary, broad coverage sources on the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. Material appears to be WP:OR or indirectly relevant to the topic; the game examples do not mention this term in their articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:44, 2 December 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) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a novel coinage by the article author. No currency in reliable sources; unreliable sources (like urban dictionary) do not match the context claimed here either. Article creator removed the AFD template from the article page, but I have restored it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about removing the bit at the top - I didn't know it was put there deliberately. This is the first time I've added content to wikipedia, and I wasn't sure what was had happened when I reloaded it.

Apparently this page is where were discuss the article. So to address your concerns: I can't cite any references, and I can't trace where the term came from. But it is a term which we (friends and I) use to describe this genre of game. I learned it from them, and they learned the term from others. I have no idea where it originated. So while it may not be a frequently used term, it is certainly in use.

My first point of argument: You say there are no references -- References are meant for verifying that stated facts are provably true. Nomenclature isn't provable; it's just comes into existence through use, and as such there isn't anything to cite.

My second point of argument: Encyclopedias would be slow to progress if they were only allowed to publish material that is already common knowledge. It's okay to publish content that is little known for the benefit others, just as it's okay to introduce nomenclature that is infrequently used, (or is used by a subset of society), similarly for the benefit of others.

My third point of argument: The fact that starcraft et al don't call themselves BUME games is irrelevant. Classifications are allowed to be applied retrospectively, and they regularly are. For example, Dune 2 didn't call itself an RTS game when it was published, yet it is currently categorised into that genre on wikipedia because the classification is done retrospectively. -- jzds80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzds80 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but you are making a common mistake when addressing AfD notability (as used on Knowledge) concerns. Article existence on Knowledge requires it to pass WP:GNG -- which is multiple, reliable, secondary sources with broad coverage of the topic. This really is all that is to it. Unfortunately, it does not matter whether you think this is common knowledge; that is original research. Also remember to sign with ~~~~. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

>>> it does not matter whether you think this is common knowledge. I never suggested that this was ... I'm guessing that you've misunderstood what I wrote because English is not your native language, so let me rephrase it: My second point of argument was that being common knowledge (or not) is irrelevant. Encyclopedias should help lesser known things become better known, rather than only document things that are already well known.

I can understand the need for guidelines, but they should not be treated as rigid sets of rules that obstruct progress. That'd be counterproductive and bureaucratic. It's similar to how the spirit of the law should be more important than the letter of the law. The guidelines are intended to be flexible, for oiling the gears, and facilitating the sharing of knowledge... That's the objective of an encyclopedia, and that's all I'm trying to do here. Jzds80 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC) jzds80

None of your points address the notability guideline (GNG), which takes precedence over all your other arguments. This discussion will not change how the whole website treats neologisms. Reiterating for the third time: unless you provide reliable, secondary, non-dictionary references of significant coverage, this article does not meet Knowledge's notability guidelines. I've already taken more time to reply to you than most editors would ever bother. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

SpeedTrace Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. No sources. (PROD was contested with no expalanation by IP with no edits other than to this article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

DPS Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. There appears to be a consensus that these kind of articles are fine based on the discussion below and the result of the previous AfD cited. I do note that several editors have suggested that these articles be sourced as soon as they're created, which seems like a good way of avoiding further AfDs (though this isn't necessary policy-wise). Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Electoral results for the district of North West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Editor is creating a mass of articles all similar to this. Election results seem non notable to me, unless there was something in particular about that election that was notable (scandal etc). WP:NOT. Also, all of the articles appear to have no references, so this could be WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Original research! Um, do you really think I went down there and counted the ballots myself? At any rate, result articles don't even have to be encyclopedic - they qualify for separate articles because it's permitted to split articles once they become long enough (otherwise we'd have election results cluttering seat articles, like with Canadian ridings (e.g. here and here)). Miracle Pen (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Done about 20 so far of the WA 2008 results. I've haphazardly done some of the NSW 2011 results, I'll finish them off next. As soon as Antony Green releases a 2010 Victorian election summary, I'll use that for the Victorian seats. Then I have to get onto Queensland.... Miracle Pen (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the reference and thanks for creating these articles. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  Although I would strongly prefer that we require that sources be documented (or at least described on the talk page) before an article can be created, this is not the current policy, and nominating an article for deletion four hours after it was created is not the way to go.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  Miracle Pen probably needs to consider that the community does not accept the incivility and corresponding disregard for the force of reason shown in this AfD, and that the corresponding insistence on creating articles that don't satisfy WP:V's sourcing policy can lead to a one-month topic ban.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep  A Speedy keep result would allow this article to be renominated in two or three weeks.  I am identifying WP:IAR as the controlling policy here, as IMO any attempt to develop or ascertain a consensus at this time is problematic.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep but please reference them straight away, not eventually. As you say, you aren't making up the numbers, so you obviously are copying them from a source - please write that source into the article's first edit. The-Pope (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ban nominator instead. Rebecca (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep -This is a fresh article and it could stand improvement in the form of commentary, maps, and so on. Nevertheless, this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia, in my estimation. I think there is a consensus for the inclusion of this sort of material that has developed. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can be restored for userfication if anybody is really interested in salvaging and merging some content.  Sandstein  13:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While very well researched, this is an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. The article name itself presupposes that Soviet Russia was instrumental in the modern movement of political correctness, which is a proposition, not a hard fact. Kansan (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Userfy - This is an Original Research topic to end all Original Research topics, anachronistically using not one but two concepts (Bolshevik, Political Correctness). That would make this an easy call for deletion, based upon the title. The contents don't reflect the title, however — it contains substantial material on Willi Münzenberg, and not all bad. There is material of worth here by a new content contributor who seems to be really trying to footnote properly, etc., about a substantive topic. Long-term editor Rich Farmbrough has intervened to help with copy and style editing, I see from the edit history. I will be getting in touch with the new editor to see if I can help out with questions, etc. This absolutely needs to be removed from mainspace as (a) an original research topic name with heavy POV overtones; (b) not a valid search term; (c) content not reflected by the title which would represent a fork of Willi Münzenberg if properly titled. However, this should NOT, emphatically NOT, be deleted outright under the principle of Don't Bite the Newcomers, but rather userfied to the creator's page so that worthwhile material can be ported over to the appropriate locations without loss of work. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge OR designed to grind a particular point of view, namely that contemporary leftists use Bolshevik tactics. A no brainer delete, although as noted above, certain material could be added to the Munzenberg article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with existing articles. In the main this seems to be a wildly ahistorical heavily biased piece that does not attempt to acknowledge the accepted concensus on Bolshevism or Political Correctness. If there are a few new facts, they can be added to the existing articles, for example on Willi Münzenberg. Sionk (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was IAR speedy close; this isn't a productive way to start and AFD or resolve the issues. Talk page is thataway... (no prejudice against future renomination under normal procedures) --Errant 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicide methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't support this article's deletion, but I am creating this nomination on the behalf of User:MarcusBritish who seems to think this article should be deleted for its supposedly unencyclopedic nature; since we disagree as to what the consensus is, I thought that we should refer the matter to consensus again, so as to settle the animosity between us. User:MarcusBritish will give a clearer argument for its deletion. elle vécut heureuse (be free) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep – sorry, I did not approve or request this. Editor should not have opened AfD in my name, which is uncivil behaviour whilst the issue is being discussed on AN/I. This is merely a tactic to avoid facing issues the article may have, but does not wish to discuss. Closing Admin please warn nominator against this behaviour, and not to use AfD in this fashion, or other people's names. Ma®©usBritish  14:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect all. m.o.p 05:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert B. Mitinger Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jim O'Hora Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Frank Patrick Memorial Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Red Worrell Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable awards given only to members of the Penn State football team. No third party sources to indicate notability. Awards limited to a single football team. --GrapedApe (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Homs Province Ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The event does not meet the relevance and importance criteria of a Knowledge page ChronicalUsual (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans_Canosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable. No changes since last deletion on 2007 except a film "released in Japan" which "8,598 watched" according to its wiki page. There are Youtube videos that get more views than that. — Rothko66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep and encourage continued improvements. Originally only a 3-sentence stub in 2007, this was redirected at that time per a very short 3-person AFD. Last year IP 189.195.120.180 reverted the redirect and began expanding the original stub article somewhat, and in searches now, we can easily find he and his work discussed in multiple secondary sources to meet WP:GNG for that coverage and WP:FILMMAKER for his works themselves receiving commentary and review. We can look at Film Threat The List and Digital Content that were external links for the original stub which could have allowed sorced exapnsion back then... and add those to the additonal sources found in searches, and we might detrmine we have notability enough to allow it to remain and grow through regular editing. This article has some terrific WP:POTENTIAL. I do not know who the 3-lifetime-edits nominator is, but I find flaws in his nomination statement... with its beginning with WP:JNN and then his stating that the only change in the filmmaker's career was another film. Even if a filmmaker is not prolific, we gauge notability upon coverage of that individual and coverage of their works. This could have been improved back in 2007 and there's even more available to improve in 2011. I will add that what was redirected in 2007, has already become a much better article, and that the nominator Rothko66 appears to an new acount for the Rothko65 whose last edit was in 2007. We have two "Rothko" users with interest in this article. Schmidt, 18:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was a vanity article in 2007 and continues to be such. WP:FILMMAKER is not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.41 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — 193.104.113.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    The 3 sentences that were redirected in 2007 were three simple, neutral, and verifiable statements. And since its expansion in 2010, it has remained neutral, has been expanded and sourced further while remaining neutral. There is even more that can be done, but being neutral, encyclopedic, and properly sourced to meet WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER does not somehow equate to "vanity". Schmidt, 02:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    The point here is not whether statements are verifiable, but if the person involved is notable or not. We cannot give everyone that directs one reviewed film their own wiki article. Need to see more notable work before this person can be viewed as "notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.66.60 (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, he's not a profilic author, but I believe he passes WP:FILMAKER as "The person's work(...)has won significant critical attention" and as he "has created (...) a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". --Cavarrone (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    There is no body of work to justify the inclusion of the director alone. Merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.104.113.46 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    WP:FILMAKER does not require it. It says "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work". Howewer he directed three movies, not just one.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per MichaelQSchmidt. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep The reasons given for deletion are not valid. I consider this borderline, and a matter of judgment, but when judgment is necessary in this field I rely of that of MQS. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2006 Gulf of Mexico earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's hard to see how this earthquake is notable. Only a 6.0. Hit an unpopulated area (underwater, that is). Didn't cause a tsunami. No deaths or injuries, only some shaking shelves. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This earthquake has been mentioned in various newspaper articles as a notable event due to the rarity of earthquakes in the region. Furthermore, it has been described by the National Geographic as "Unusual Occurrence", and "The strongest earthquake to hit the Gulf of Mexico in 33 years". These media statements would satisfy criteria set by the general notability guidelines for inclusion. riffic (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As well, this article may satisfy these guidelines as well, specifically being an "Unusually large event(s) in areas of low seismicity"
Plus, there is scientific interest in this event from this link. A researcher could pull this source and find out what the three talks specifically mentioned in this Society of Exploration Geophysicists source have to say. riffic (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a bit about the geo hazard assessment. Mikenorton (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ghazali Public School Amana Abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdrawn No evidence of notability. PROD was contested by original creator without stating a reason. Muhandes (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep (non-admin closure): pace the DRV, it's patently obvious that the nominating editor did not read the article at all (q.v. WP:SK 2.5). Even without the SPAs, there are about 15 editors who have opined the article should be kept, and I cannot see any outcome other than a unanimous keep for this article; even the most ardent pro-BLP editors would most likely agree that the article should be kept. (Incidentally, edit summaries in themselves don't in themselves imply anything; I sometimes use strange edit summaries when making minor edits) Sceptre 14:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very sophisticated hoax, or highly contrived non notable joke. In any case, this person and the creation of his article is a highly dubious 'notable' person whose place in Knowledge is questionable at best. Not notable, potential hoax, potential 'what we made up in school' jape. The edit summaries suggest this is a joke article or the result of some kind of 'dare'. Not a known figure in the United Kingdom. Not a successful household name. Not notable in his field. doktorb words 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

KEEP. I can verify that this is no hoax, and I would bet a year's worth of my edits that nothing to date in this article has been touched by anyone at a UK school. Since when did anyone have to be a household name to appear in any encyclopedia? The subject has made his mark in the field of advocacy about science and health claims. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
KEEP. The references and material in the public domain speak for themselves. This is neither a hoax nor a joke and after being involved in two separate significant and public incidences of questioning what appears to be pseudo-science I would say the notability criteria is also met. Jjasi (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
KEEP. This is not a hoax or a joke. Rhys Morgan has been featured on television, and has (quickly, admittedly) become really quite well-known within the sceptic community. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator should have done a small amount of research first before suggesting this is a hoax, because there are many independent sources - detailed above, and others - that clearly indicate Morgan and his activities are genuine.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP Morgan and the account of his significant activities are no hoax - I have communicated with him occasionally and followed his activities for a year. The article is accurate and this teenager is already notable for his efforts to expose medical fads that are not based on evidence but are promoted to make money for their sellers. Argey (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP If Rhys Morgan is a hoax, then the Guardian, the BBC, his school, Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh and numerous others who have met, interviewed and awarded Rhys over the last couple of years have been taken in too. He's certainly notable. Digitaltoast (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Digitaltost (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Note for Administrator Many users here, including DigitalToast, have no edits other than votes here. I suspect they are single-purpose accounts created to skew the deletion discussion process and as such should be discounted when making your final decision. doktorb words 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment I would like to point out that I am not particularly concerned about whether this is a hoax or not. The fact that Morgan has been referred to in numerous national newspapers, and appeared on national television, and appears to continue to do so, irrespective of whatever anyone's opinion is on his research, tips the article in the direction of notable for me. Also, since an AfD discussion is based on consensus rather than votes (personally, it was Tom Morris' comments that I found the most convincing), it is unlikely that any wave of single-purpose accounts would affect the overall decision. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Doktorb will have noted that I joined Knowledge on Sep 15, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Is he seriously suggesting that I joined over 5 years ago in order to vote on an article from the future? Why did Doktorb not click ANY of the 8 referenced links to Rhys Morgan or use Google? Why, on his talk page, has Doktorb not answered my question which was "Can you please declare any interest you may have in the alt-med industry?"? His actions, repeated use of certain words, bizarre explanations for deletion and avoidance of question relating to involvement with the alt-med industry should arouse great suspicion. Digitaltoast (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP He has received significant press coverage from multiple sources on more than one occasion, he has received a significant award in recognition of his contributions in the field of science activism, he's been acknowledged by notable figures in his field (James Randi and Richard Dawkins among others), and wrote a column in The Guardian -- and he's done it all by the age of 17, making him somewhat of a Doogie Howser-like wunderkind (and the public seems to love him for it). He easily satisfies notability requirements WP:BIO IMO. Suggesting that I created this article as a joke or dare (and basing that accusation on my edit summaries) is way, way off-base. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep - When a nomination calls a challenged page a "Very sophisticated hoax, or highly contrived non notable joke" and when the footnotes include a link to BBC NEWS-WALES, it's time to shut the sucker down as either a bad faith nomination or an incompetent nomination. Then we've got "Not a known figure in the United Kingdom. Not a successful household name. Not notable in his field." Yeah, just throw shit against the wall and see if something sticks. That one source tops this shitty nomination, snow this shut and let's move on. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Further Comment I note that Knowledge is very strict on people having articles who are famous for just one thing. This person is not "famous" and is only notable for one act. This too should be taken into account. I have no connection with the alt-med industry at all. DigitalToast has not made any edits prior to this vote, by the way. I am highly dubious about an article which just appeared out of nowhere in its current form about a "wunderkid". doktorb words 18:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP At the young age of 17 Rhys Morgan has made significant contributions to public awareness of the dangers of unsubstantiated medicines and medical claims. He has advocated successfully for persons who would have been at risk for substantial physical harm had they followed a dangerously toxic regimen in a misguided effort to treat various symptoms. He now has an international profile in the wake of his positive endeavors and as such is certainly deserving of note in Knowledge. Disparaging comments are most likely from parties who are at risk of a loss of revenue from Rhys' very fair, logical, and commonsense approach to verifying medical claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangeo (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP Rhys is not famous for just one thing, there are plenty of reliable sources in the article. Agree with commenters above that this nomination for deletion was not made in good faith. Krelnik (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Also agree that the "appear out of nowhere" comment is nonsense. I consider it fairly standard practice to work up a new article in one's user scratch space, then copy it when it is in usable form. It just avoids a whole host of issues, such as wasting other editors time on reviewing work that isn't 'done' yet. (I do realize this is not what was done here - my point being that considering a suddenly-appearing fully-formed article suspicious in some way is deeply inconsistent with standard practices engaged by most editors) Krelnik (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • At this point the debate was snow closed. A deletion review of the snow closure was entered, and I decided that it would do no harm to follow the process strictly. Accordingly, I re-opened the debate per WP:BRD. Please could the debate be allowed to continue for at least 168 hours.—S Marshall T/C 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
KEEP. I am not sure if this article was merged with one I created - the text is similar in places (although that could be coincidence). I have edited Knowledge pages before (and have written a lot of the content of
Keep - normally we'd discount any attempt at notability in such a young subject, but having The Guardian and other impeccable sources under his belt, Morgan is unquestionably a notable public figure, and it is entirely appropriate that WP has an article on him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wasn't canvassed: more that I have been following certain events elsewhere on the net and this has been a controversial area with a number of different attacks made on sceptical bloggers; this seemed a little too coincidental.
And I have to start somewhere in my Wiki membership...
Basket Press (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP - The article's subject is well-covered in the mainstream UK media and good sources are provided to that effect. Particularly notable in the field as well although there's no reason to enter into that argument, since it's clearly not required in this instance. Rushyo 11:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that Rhys has been in the news multiple times. Indeed, the awards he's cited as receiving occur before the recent outburst of media notability relating to the American clinic, which is merely the most recent of his news-worthy items. I should like to point out that Knowledge:RECENTISM is not a rule, particularly so as Knowledge "does not employ hard-and-fast rules" (Knowledge:Policies_and_guidelines). In addition, he's a respected member of various fields (skepticism, consumer protection, libel reform et al.) who is recognised as a significant figure in those areas by many other significant figures (amongst them Stephen Fry, David Allen Green, James Randi and Ben Goldacre). Most crucially, I observe that many 'notable' people only appear in the news once or twice, no matter what the value of their life's work and notability amongst society since the media does not necessarily reflect Knowledge's definition of what is notable. It is very hard to find people who are regularly in the news day in and day out. It is therefore, in my honest opinion, silly to assume that failure to be in the news every month is a failure of notability since otherwise we would have significant difficulities in maintaining articles on any people whose notability has not been established over their entire lifetime. Further to the above I would like to note that whilst Knowledge requires Significant coverage for notability, the word significant is taken to mean that which 'address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' (Knowledge:Notability). It is clear that the sources more than adequately meet this criteria. I see no legitimate challenge to NOTABILITY. The fact that one party has not heard of another party is not the criteria by which notability is to be considered and it is my opinion that there is no objective value (let alone subjective) in the original complaint. Rushyo 11:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regardless of canvassing allegations, I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever to substantiate several key claims made in this nomination. If these postulations were made in error, they should be renounced by the nominator in a way that is conducive to productive discussion; we are all human and occasionally make mistakes—it is sometimes embarrassing but there is no reason why conceding a refuted point should reflect poorly on one's character. Otherwise, if there's compelling information that has mistakenly been left unstated, then it needs to be made known, because at this point its abscence impedes debate on the merit of notability alone.   — C M B J   13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • KEEP - The "hoax"-bit should be resolved by now, but if anyone is still in doubt, I have exchanged PMs and emails with Rhys regarding MMS when this was "hot", and I have no doubt that he is flesh and blood. He is also "notable" in the skeptic communities and bloggosphere all over the Western world, in connection with MMS and also the Burzynski shenanigans. Is there any particular evidence that the nominator thinks is missing, to document the text in the article about Rhys, I suggest he asks for it specifically, so it may be produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronja R (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources attest that the subject really exists; it's no hoax. Notability is not the strongest but I'm confident that it's past the WP:NPEOPLE benchmark. It's not really helpful that lots of people have turned up to make their first edit at this AfD, because decisions here are supposed to be based on the strongest policy-based arguments rather than who can muster the most friends (or sockpuppets). I would encourage people to frame their arguments in terms of policy, and to assume good faith - deletion discussions can often be stressful or hostile, so resist the urge to escalate the conflict. However, if any of you recent editors would like to stick around and improve the article or - even better - improve other bits of the encyclopædia, I'd love to help. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Arte Italica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial passing mentions. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Lacks depth of coverage. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree. No evidence of notability. The only mentions are from retailers of the products. The press coverage seems to be about the products, not the importer. I'm a bit scornful of companies that claim notability for simply importing someone else's wares! Sionk (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Germanic Mythology and Folklore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website of dubious notability, if any, with little in the way of reliable sources. This "journal" has only ever published four issues, the last being in 2006. The site says that the fifth issue will come out in July 2007. The article is also largely an orphan. Given the fact the site has been dormant for almost six years, there is little likelihood of expansion of the article. Agent 86 (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rajiv Anchal.  Sandstein  21:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Australia (1992 Malayalam film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film was dropped in 1992. Why should there be any article for this in Knowledge ?
Anish Viswa 07:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete According to WP:NOTFILM: "Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." I haven't found any sources that state how the failure of this movie was notable. PaintedCarpet (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn; to be split into separate AFDs Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim Rogers (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a local politician of a not-a-large city, doesn't really pass notability for politicians. Is several years out of date. Also a BLP without reliable references on top of that. Nominating the following similar articles for deletion as well:

Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Jim Rogers - he is also cited as a known TV personality in the San Fransisco Bay area. There are still sources online which testify to this (p.21 of the latter suggests he was ubiquitous for more than 2 decades). If he was just a councillor in a minor suburb I'd agree with deletion, but this guy seems to be more than that. Once notable, always notable according to WP. Sionk (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are all the deletion discussions for the other politicians in the list directed here too? Is this normal? Having looked dispassionately at the entries for the other individuals (listed above) I would agree the remainder should be deleted. That is with the exception of Irma Anderson, *if* a reliable source can be found to confirm she was the first african american woman mayor of a major Californian city. Even in her case I would tend to suggest she would be more suitable for a mention in an article about the 2001 election (similarly to Richmond, California municipal elections, 2006), rather than an article in her own right. The article suggests there were other black american female mayors in non-major cities, which rather dilutes the claim! Sionk (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Plz read WP:AFD. It is acceptable to nominate multiple similar articles for deletion. If you want to keep Rogers and Anderson, and delete the rest, you say, "Keep Rogers and Anderson, delete the rest" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Jim Rogers. I have updated the article, which was out of date. I don't know why nominator describes it as a "BLP without reliable references"; the article is well referenced. As to his notability, he would not qualify as notable for being a county supervisor and city councilman, but he is highly notable/notorious for his previous incarnation as a lawyer. He was one of the first attorneys to advertise on TV, becoming a household name in the Bay Area as "the People's Lawyer" - and his fame/notoriety was such that his law firm was covered at length in an article in the New York University Law Review. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
NB I added the secondary references and augmented the article after the AfD notice was posted. It is fair to say the article claimed him as notable for being a councillor in Richmond. A quick google search may not have uncovered the fact he was notable for something entirely different. He is certainly not notable for being a councillor and, probably, the article should be renamed 'Jim Rogers (lawyer)'. Sionk (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Deferring judgment for now on the others in this batch nomination. IMO it is unfair to lump nine individual people into a single nomination like this, since it encourages discussants to treat them all the same, rather than evaluating each person on their merits. Yes, I know, Knowledge permits multiple nominations, but IMO it should be limited to articles that are substantially related to each other in some way. I don't know about the others here, but I am not willing to shrug and say "oh, well, I'll just call all of them non-notable and move on." --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    These are clearly related...they are all city council members from a medium-sized city, they all hadn't been updated in over three years, and all of them had no reliable sources. Notability is determined by reliable sources, and if you don't have reliable sources, you ain't notable. And Jim Rogers was that way when he was nominated...he had one source, which wasn't reliable. Perfectly acceptable, perfectly fair, should have been done two years ago Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:BEFORE you are supposed to do a little research before nominating an article for deletion - not just basing your nomination on the current state of the article, which can be fixed by editing if the person is notable. I am now having to do that person-by-person research since you didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not the nominator's responsibility to fix articles that have been bad for three years. They should have been deleted years ago Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Irma Anderson. I could find no confirmation of the claim that she was the first African-American woman mayor of a major California city - only that she was the first African-American woman to be mayor of Richmond. Her career and news coverage are otherwise unremarkable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Nathaniel Bates. I found plenty of coverage about him and added some to the article. He is one of the longest-serving city councilmembers in the state of California. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Rosemary Corbin. I found only routine coverage about her as mayor and city councilmember. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Richard Griffin (Councilmember). I found plenty of references about him; he served for more than 20 years. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Being a councilperson in a town of 103,000 doesn't make you notable. Your "plenty of references" is nothing but a few items in the local paper. Griffin needs to go, as does Bates Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't use Straw man arguments. Nobody claimed that being a councilperson in a town of 103,000 makes him notable. The very fact that I am saying "delete" for some of these people and "keep" for others shows that I am applying WP:BIO on an individual basis, not claiming some kind of automatic notability for all these people. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
For starters, you shouldn't put each !vote in a separate header...you should bundle them all in one header. Or you enbolden the person you're talking about. For second, the "sources" you're using are nothing more than local newspapers. I still maintain that these people are non-notable...if these are kept, we could be facing a flurry of thousands of councilmembers of small and medium-sized towns who are mentioned in local papers Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I will keep on putting each !vote in a separate header. I don't know any other way to give each individual article the attention it deserves. The references I cited are mostly regional (the San Francisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune) rather than local (Richmond's local paper is the Contra Costa Times). Significant coverage in regional reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: User has voted separately for each article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep all - Individual politician bios are not peas from a single pod and should not be nominatable by group as "similar articles." Each case is different and they should be all brought up on their own merits after WP:BEFORE is followed by the nominator. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
These articles are too peas in a pod. They are poorly written, out of date, and not reliabily sourced from non-local areas. Each one of them could have been prodded. I stand 100% behind my decision to nominate them together. They're cruft, and should have been gone years ago Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Correction: they are no longer out of date. I spent more than an hour yesterday bringing them up to date. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, what it sounds like you're doing is criticizing the policy of AFDs rather than me personally. If you don't like the policy, suggest a change (which I obviously will oppose). And keep in mind it's not the nominator's responsibility to completely clean up bad and pretty clearly non-notable articles. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
As the first person that commented on this AfD, I have to agree with Purpleback. On December 1st all of these articles claimed notability based on being elected officials in Richmond. That in itself is not sufficient for notability and a fair reason to nominate them all. However, being poorly written, out-of-date or unsourced is not a reason for deletion, otherwise half of Knowledge would be zapped :) Sionk (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this discussion open to all Wikipedians, or only to those intimately familiar with the topic? Where do I find the definition of notability for mayors? What is a "not-large-city"? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It's open to all Wikipedians. For definition of notability, see WP:POLITICIAN, although not all these people were mayors. Richmond is a substantially sized city, but not one of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, Ottawahitech. Certainly everyone's input is welcome; AfD discussions are not limited to "specialists" in a given area. The answer to your question is that local politicians have to meet the general notability guidelines of WP:BIO. There is no automatic inclusion for mayors, or for officials of any particular size of city (unlike, say, state or provincial legislators who are automatically deemed notable). It all depends on whether they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Reasonable people may differ on what constitutes "significant" coverage, and what kind of sources are required. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment  Notability overview, to whom it may concern.
  1. The main document regarding notability is WP:Notability, which is a guideline and is commonly known as WP:N.  WP:N has only one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice".  The nutshell is a must read.
  2. Within WP:N, WP:GNG is the general notability guideline, which is one path to determining that a topic is "worthy of notice".  Other shortcuts in WP:N that often are mentioned are WP:NNC, WP:NRVE, WP:NTEMP, and WP:LISTN.
  3. The lede of WP:N recognizes a number of "subject specific guidelines", also known as SNGs, which are alternate guidelines to determining that a topic is "worthy of notice".  Note that there is a body of editors who deny that SNGs are valid alternatives to WP:GNG, although I don't claim to understand their viewpoint.
  4. WP:Notability (people) contains sub-guidelines each of which might also be called an SNG, and each of which are alternate guidelines to determining that a topic is "worthy of notice".  Included here are WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN.
  5. There may also be notability essays that could apply.  Notability essays also define whether or not a topic is "worthy of notice", but are not recognized as such by WP:N.  An essay may be no more than one person's opinion.  An essay is neither a guideline nor a policy.
  6. To my knowledge, the absence of notability is not defined at Knowledge, it is the set left after removing topics that are "worthy of notice".  In particular, such a claim requires evidence that WP:GNG is not satisfied, and in this case would also require evidence that WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN are not satisfied.
  7. WP:N is a guideline to decide if we should have a stand-alone article on Knowledge, deletion is determined by WP:Deletion policy.
  8. WP:ATD, "Alternatives to deletion", is a part of WP:Deletion policy in which the point is that we avoid deleting material when there are alternatives. 
  9. WP:IAR also comes into play, but editors tend not to cite it.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thoroughly aware of the guidelines when I nominated it, so lecturing me on what notability guidelines are comes off a bit condescending. It seems blatently clear that these fail ANYBIO, and probably POLITICIAN as well. That leaves GNG. Really the question comes down to, "Does being mentioned in the local paper make you notable enough for a Knowledge article?" And I think it doesn't Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the reason I said "to whom it may concern", is because the person asking the question was more specific than the answer that I gave.  But this editor was also asking questions on another page that made me think it was worth posting in case it was helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Close AfD and split - The fact that people are arguing for different outcomes for the different articles is a pretty clear sign that they all should not be decided in one lumped AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was wrong forum -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Newton Aycliffe Leisure Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be merged and redirected to Durham Wildcats. Jab843 (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case either be bold and merge it, or open a merge discussion if you think it would be controversial. Potential merges do not need to come to AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily kept under criterion #1 (nominator withdrew, no dissenting opinions). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Custom House, Liverpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be merged with Liverpool. Jab843 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Customs buildings are often prestige buildings that are likely to be the subject of reliable sources, which is the case here. The British Library's catalogue has a listing for a 90-page book published in 1928 about this building. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Note also that the Liverpool article is already 148K and so exceeds the guidance of WP:SIZE. Note also that it says "Liverpool's Custom House was the single largest contributor to the British Exchequer" and so this seems to be a topic with much potential. Warden (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The custom house of a port the size of Liverpool is clearly going to be a notable building, even if it no longer exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Withdraw I withdraw my nomination of this article to xfd. It has been made clear that it should exist, and I am now aware of WP:SIZE. Jab843 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied A10 by Fastily (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, The Godfathers(Kool_G_Rap & Necro))). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Godfathers(Kool G Rap & Necro)) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NN and music notability. Jab843 (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Renominated for CSD As A10 then. The article says the album is the "debut album from a hip hop group featuring" two blue-linked artists, but the 'hip hop group' that created this album is neither named nor linked. I still think there is was a case for A9 here, but I'll just AFD the original the original article looks like it is maturing. Livit⇑/What? 13:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to George Miller (filmmaker)#Dr. D Studios. (non-admin closure) Sprinting faster (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dr. D Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NN also seems to be a promotional ad. Jab843 (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to its founder at George Miller (filmmaker)#Dr. D Studios where this production company is already mentioned. While promotional tone can almost always be addressed through regular editing, and this production facility does have coverage, what I see as the greatest issue here is that so far they have only one film in their portfolio... the corporate version of WP:ONEEVENT... and so far, it lacks suitable independent notability which might merit a separate article. Best we redirect to the one place where it is currently reasonable that it be discussed in relatonship to its founder. Schmidt, 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Although there is a fair number of Google News results, almost all of it relates to George Miller andor Happy Feet 2. The company is slated to work on Mad Max 4 and Miller's future projects (I remember hearing about a Justice League film Miller had got the rights to plus something else, but can't source them at the moment), but when Mad Max is drifting in and out of development hell and you've got news articles like , , and claiming that the company is about to be canned because of Happy Feet 2's poor performance and disagreements between Miller's company and another partner-company, I don't think Dr. D. will be around much longer. Were there much content in the article, I would suggest merging to Miller or Happy Feet 2, but the incarnation of the article I see has little that isn't already in either article. So, redirect to George Miller. -- saberwyn 02:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pratfall effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has dubious progeny as a term, even as technical terminology. Linguistically, this term can be covered by a dictionary, as it is unlikely to ever become an encyclopedic term. More could be written debating this term's inclusion than can be written about it. Move it to a dictionary or delete it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. Surprised me, I'll admit, but there's (hopefully) not going to be more written in this AFD than has been written about it. In addition to the Psychonomic Science article currently cited, there are papers about this topic in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the Central States Speech Journal (now renamed Communication Studies), Research in Higher Education, and the Journal of Consumer Research, among others. A Google Books search is also highly productive. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - This topic is covered in many reliable sources, and appears to be a psychological term, rather than a definition. Northamerica1000 08:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep. The term a) has rock-solid academic/research foundations, and b) is deeply embedded in popular culture. I have added half-a-dozen references (of types (a) and (b)) and as Squeamish Ossifrage points out, we can easily add a hundred more. The term is not merely a dictionary usage but has rich social, political, sporting, management and academic connotations which a dictionary could not hope to cover. My brief draft of the body of the article touches on these aspects, and there is plentiful scope for others wiser than me to add much more in due time.
PS: Squeamish Ossifrage, could you pop your citaitons into the article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussions on merging may be continued at the appropriate talk pages. –MuZemike 05:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Biblical counseling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure and apparently schismatically-sectarian form of religiously-based counselling, lacking in significant third-party coverage (and apparently lacking any evaluation at all from mainstream psychology or psychiatry). Originally AfDed as Nouthetic Counseling, attempts since to merge it into some wider topic have stalled. In rebuttal to arguments raised at the original AfD, no, a non-notable "National Association" does not make a topic notable (anybody can create their own National Association), nor does the fact that a few sectarian seminaries offer a degree in a viewpoint render that viewpoint independently notable, (and the bald assertion that WP:ITSNOTABLE is simply worthless, as is a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument). "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is needed to demonstrate notability. HrafnStalk 04:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Christian counseling as I argued in the first AfD. This might differ from some types of Christian counseling, but seems to fit within it as a subset. Not sure what text should actually be merged since what is in this article is minimal and not well sourced (which is why I would be fine with delete if there weren't a somewhat decent redirect target). So practically speaking, this may be a redirect with a cut-and-past of a sentence or two. Novaseminary (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's all very well saying the WP:GOOGLEHITS argument is worthless, but there are numerous books and theses about the subject. Here are a few:
    • Competent to counsel : introduction to nouthetic counseling by Jay E. Adams
    • A critical evaluation of Jay Adams' theory of nouthetic counseling by Rodney R Kamrath
    • An explication of Jay E. Adams' theology of biblical-nouthetic counseling by J Yarbrough
    • Behaviorism and the nouthetic counseling model of Jay E. Adams by Michael Wayne Firmin
Hence, there is certainly third-party coverage, though it is a pity there isn't more in the article. As to the alleged lack of coverage in mainstram psychology, I suppose this subject is much more a branch of pastoral theology then it is of pastoral counseling. I must also say that the use of the word "sectarian" in the nomination bothers me. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Competent to counsel : introduction to nouthetic counseling by Jay E. Adams
    • Not even close to independent/third-party -- pants on fire territory here, StAnselm
  • A critical evaluation of Jay Adams' theory of nouthetic counseling by Rodney R Kamrath
    • An MA thesis -- not a particularly reliable source (see WP:RSN discussion on such theses), and certainly adds little to notability
  • An explication of Jay E. Adams' theology of biblical-nouthetic counseling by J Yarbrough
    • Another thesis
  • Behaviorism and the nouthetic counseling model of Jay E. Adams by Michael Wayne Firmin
    • Yet another thesis
"Hence", there is no evidence whatsover of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnStalk 06:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I'll provide some journal articles then:
It sounds like you don't like this subject. But being "sectarian" doesn't mean it isn't notable. StAnselm (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Topics of very narrow (hence "sectarian") interest are very frequently not notable. I see nothing "IDONTLIKEIT" about pointing out just how narrow that interest has been. HrafnStalk 09:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
That's correct. But note its treatment in the Dictionary of pastoral care and counseling, which claims to "enlist the participation of nearly 600 Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish contributors." StAnselm (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Because the article in question concentrates almost purely on BC/NC insiders explaining their reasoning for splitting off from Pastoral counseling. It contains little, if any, third-party viewpoint/commentary -- so little basis for creating a notable/NPOV article. HrafnStalk 06:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What about merging and redirecting to "Christian counseling"? What makes this a distinct topic? How do we know? Even if it is N on its own, if it is a subset of Christian counseling, why not redirect until enough is there to spin-off per WP:SUMMARY? Novaseminary (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The Dictionary of pastoral care and counseling has a separate entry on this topic under "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" (p. 448). StAnselm (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There are hundreds of thousands of topical dictionaries, each with thousands of entries. A single such dictionary entry does not come even close to establishing notability. HrafnStalk 06:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm unsure whether this particular strain of Christian Counseling is independently notable, even though I am familiar with Adams' work. However, this is not the only thing to have ever been called "biblical counseling", and so I cannot see how a redirect to Christian counseling is inappropriate, even if none of this material is merged there. To Hrafn's point, even if the sources listed don't establish independent notability, it is within the expectation of WP:ATD to merge the verifiable content (and the sources discussed above seem able to meet V, if not establish notability) so that it can be covered in a broader context per WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the sources (e.g. the theses and journal articles cited above), it is clear that the page move from Nouthetic Counseling was inappropriate. That is the most common name, as well as the name that distinguishes it from other forms of Christian counseling. StAnselm (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Hrafn is right that the potential target I suggested (Christian counseling) is terrible, too, but it could theoretically get better and would seem to cover this sub-topic. As Jclemens just aptly noted, NNC makes clear that sub-topics discussed within an article need not separately meet N. As this article stands, none of it could be cut-and-pasted "as is" into Christian counseling, so the "merge" part would fall out and would really just be a simple redirect. Admittedly, I'm not sure there is much practical difference between my suggestion and a straight delete !vote with a clean redirect then being created other than the retention of edit history (which for this article is pretty worthless). And StAnselm, I am not sure how "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" equals this topic. Didn't you say at Talk:Pastoral_counseling#Merger proposal that "pastoral care" is not this? If this method is really one guy's type of counseling (pastoral, Biblical, or whatever), why not redirect it to his article and explain his theory or whatever? It is becoming more clear to me that this article should not exist, and there is little to nothing to salvage from the article. If there is an acceptable redirect target, then fine (I still think there is). If not, it should be deleted. Of course, if good sources that distinguish this from "Christian counseling" and establish it as a separately notable topic, I'd change my !vote to keep. I'm not convinced by St.Anselm's suggestions so far. Novaseminary (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I should explain what is in the "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" article in the Dictionary of pastoral care and counseling. (It's not on Google Books, but it is on Amazon.) S. D. King says that "among fundamentalist pastoral writers today, Jay Adams is the most widely known and influential, and may be taken as a fair representative of fundamentalist pastoral care and counseling." The writer then says that Adams' "nouthetic pastoral method makes explicit in an innovative way the traditional fundamentalist pastoral method." King concludes that "nouthetic counseling's rational and certain approach can come across as impersonal, emotionally distant and insensitive." Now, does this belong in the Jay E. Adams article? King certainly suggests that this is bigger than Adams, although he is the chief representative. Anyway, I'll add the last quote to the article. StAnselm (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
You ask a very good question about pastoral case, by the way - and I think that in fundamentalism, pastoral care is seen, for better or worse, as pastoral theology. That is, one cares for people by teaching them Scripture. StAnselm (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
From the Society for Christian Psychology: "From its origins in the work of Jay Adams, nouthetic counseling and the biblical counseling which has developed since have tended to be very skeptical of contemporary psychology—because of its basis in naturalistic and humanistic assumptions—as well as the efforts of integrationist Christians who seek to combine their faith with that psychology." That's why I shrink from merging this article to one that starts "Christian counseling is counseling which draws upon psychology and Christian teaching..." StAnselm (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Christian counseling essentially conflates that topic with integrative Christian counselling (one of the reasons I never liked it as a merge/redirect target). How do you feel about Pastoral care (mentioned below) as less problematical target? HrafnStalk 09:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, I would be fine with that as a redirect target, as I was in the initial merger discussion. You noted an RS there that placed all of these into that context. StAnselm then noted some Biblical counselors might object to being considered a subset of pastoral counseling, but hasn't given any source to distinguish them. And just here above said that "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care" is this (and even that, too was in a dictionary of pastoral counseling terms), so the distinction seems weaker and could be discussed (if cited) in the general article. Novaseminary (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The only way to do that would probably be to take {{afd2}}, 'subst' it in a sandbox, and then rewrite the resulting code to point to the correct AfD. I don't mind if you want to do that, but can't really be bothered myself. HrafnStalk 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There is an extensive literature about biblical/Christian/nouthetic counselling. The latter is just one school and so it makes sense to cover the topic in a more general way such as this. There's a survey of the field in the Clinical Handbook of Pastoral Counseling: Biblical Models and Programs. The topic just needs improving from such sources per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you think discussion of this in a book with ”pastoral counseling” in the title makes it separately notable? Not every modality discussed there deserves its own article, does it? I would think not, especially when there is not yet a SUMMARY reason to split this. Why not redirect to pastoral counseling or one of the other potential topics? Novaseminary (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are over 3000 books with titles including biblical counseling. That's more than enough to establish notability. The source I provided was chosen because it is a review of the general field and so provides a good high-level view. Warden (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So what? How many of these WP:GOOGLEHITS are actually discussing this topic, which is Adams' conception of "biblical counseling"? I know you've read WP:ATA, so I know you are aware that such an argument DOES NOT "establish notability". So I would ask you why are you pretending otherwise? 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Adams does not have a monopoly on this topic — Lawrence Crabb seems to be quite influential — but it doesn't really matter because Adams' school of nouthetic counselling is notable too. There are hundreds and hundreds of books about this stuff - a level of notability which is rarely seen at AFD. See, for example, this paper in 1980 which identifies three types of biblical counselling as the field was developing: Biblical models in pastoral counseling. Warden (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fly (pentop computer). merge as suggested; I know there's been little participation, but it's the obvious solution; Kvng, would you please do the necessary editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fly Fusion Pentop Computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable Greenmaven (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep and merge to Fly (pentop computer). Individual models are not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article but the family of products is. This AfD should not have happened. Please read WP:BEFORE and have a look at linked articles before nominating. --Kvng (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ol' Talk Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod was removed. Non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete It looks like a pretty cool magazine, but it's simply not notable. No reliable sources at all have taken note of it. It's been in business less than a year. It appears to be distributed free (at least I could not find any subscription information, or even a link to where to pick it up). It comes out every other month. Unlikely that it will ever get noticed by Reliable Sources, but if it does it can be recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –MuZemike 05:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent weight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains no references to "apparent weight" and reads like an attempted physics lesson (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) Gerardw (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: none of the references listed discuss "apparent weight" -- they discuss "weight," which has its own article. Gerardw (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, Of course the article can be improved a lot, but it's better kept separate from the main Weight article. It should be clear that "apparent weight" is a notable concept, when you type it in google, autocomplete makes "apparent weight" appear when you only typed as far as "apparent", and there are a huge number of different sources that mention apparent weight in the meaning it is used in this Wiki-article. It is inevitable that this article will be a bit more textbook like than the main Weight article, but that's inherent with this topic (although I think it can be made a lot less textbook like than it currently is).
It is a rather confusing issue with weight being defined in the way it is, that's not something we can rectify at Knowledge. So, we're forced to clarify all those counterintuitive issues like weightless astronauts still having almost the same weight as they had on Earth, etc. etc. Such issues become notable issues in their own right, hence the existence of the apparent weight concept in the real world, and therefore also here on Knowledge. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of adjective noun pairs that appear in Goggle. It doesn't mean the phrase actually indicates a subject suitable for an encyclopedia. If there are suitable references WP:BURDEN would indicate supporters of the article should enter them. Gerardw (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN is about verifiability of the content, not about notability of the concept.  --Lambiam 08:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you do the Google book search on the term, you find among the first results several physics textbooks that have the term in the title of a chapter or section, such as this one.  --Lambiam 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to Weight. This is a problematic topic with a long history of confusing, low quality content (recently with some signs of improvement, especially at Weight). There is a great deal of overlap (one definition of "weight" being essentially identical to "apparent weight", as far as I can tell). It will be easier to create and maintain one good quality article if the two are merged. (psst... please no one mention g-force...!) 86.179.4.128 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this article could be improved enough to be useful. —Entropy (T/C) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: m.o.p 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Apparent weight is a notable concept in its own right, and quite different to weight. Apparent weight is the amount of normal force the an object pushes up against you, so no normal force = no apparent weight, which gives people the feeling of weightlessness even though they still have a weight. E.g if someone is on space and orbiting the earth, they have a weight - they're being pulled by Earth's gravity, but there is noting pushing up against then so they feel weightless. It is a very useful article. I say keep and work on it.--Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
By some definitions "apparent weight" is different from "weight", and by others it's the same. That's according to the articles. 86.160.208.69 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Tipler and Mosca, Phyics for Scientists and Engineers, fifth edition, 2004, pp 90, 91 seems to agree with what Coin945 is saying. It says that if the only force acting on a body is its weight (i.e. it is in free fall), it has zero apparent weight. James500 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No one, so far as I know, disagrees that a body in free fall has zero apparent weight. The disagreement is whether its weight is zero. My understanding, based on what I've been told in previous discussions and also on the current contents of the article, is that this depends on which source you read. According to one definition the weight is zero. According to another definition the weight is the same as if the body were at rest. 31.53.244.181 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
From WP:N "Information on Knowledge must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Gerardw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC).
I have just directed you to a reliable third party source on this topic, an undergraduate textbook. And that is an introductory text. James500 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I don't have that textbook, but you're more than welcome to edit the article to add the source. As I indicated above, there is an existing sourced section, Weight#Apparent_weight, that covers the concept. So what needs to be demonstrated is that there is sufficient coverage in Tipler and Mosca, plus the currently sourced information in Weight#Apparent_weight, to justify a distinct article. Gerardw (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The burden is on the nominator to look for reliable sources and confirm that they either do not exist or are not sufficient. See WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If I could fix the article I would have. "Apparent weight" is just a descriptive term textbook writers and science articles toss around -- but if you try to delve into too deeply it turns into a house of cards. Again, my contention is not that it doesn't merit mention, it's that it doesn't merit a separate article. WP:BEFORE suggests tagging -- it's been tagged for merge since 2009 and "needs expert" since Feb 2010. It's an unsourced, WP:OR hodepodge. Gerardw (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Google Books returns 102,000 results. Schaum's outline on applied physics, which I am under the impression is trustworthy, is on the first page. That looks like two reliable sources to me per GNG. James500 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no question that, if we were to momentarily disregard the separate existence of the topic of weight, the topic of apparent weight would be notable enough to merit a Knowledge article. Even the most cursory Google "research" makes that pretty obvious. However, according to the information presently in the articles, as I understand it, one definition of weight is the same as apparent weight. This means that "weight" must, and to some extent already does, explain "apparent weight". Therefore there is, as far as I can see, no point in having separate articles. 86.148.152.251 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the amount of sources on the internet is kind of irrelevant. Consult any physics school text book, or journal, or something like that, and you'll find whole chapters dedicated to the topic. I thinking its merely a case of digging, not notability.--Coin945 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ]. I never understand this sillyness. You have two very closely related subjects, which are both notable. Rather than make a single article where we discuss them both we insist on making two separate articles which are either 90% duplication or one 3 line stub and one proper article. A good example of the latter is millimetre vs metre. We have good content available, why do we insist on presenting some of our readers with junk just so we can have separate article? In this case the apparent weigth article reads like a textbook and is practically unsourced, so redirect it to weight#apparent weight. If somebody wants to add more sourced content about apparent weight let him do so in that article. If the section ever becomes big enough that it needs to be split off (I highly doubt so) the redirect can be converted to an article again. Yoenit (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Comparing the short paragraph in the Weight article, with the present article, his is a reasonable expansion, and consistent with WP:Summary style. There are lots of ways to divide and combine topics, and we shouldn't be dogmatic--to me, its a god deal like other matters of style, there's no reason to disturb an established spin-off of this sort; equally, there's no real reason to make on if it isn't thete already unless things become unmanageably large, with detail that would confuse a reader who wants only a general article. This could be done either way: there's therefore no reason to delete even if one would prefer it the other way. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Noting the criteria listed at WP:GNG, does it concern you there are no reliable sources on the article? Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
What makes you say that? There are dozens of reliable sources on this subject, many of which are physics textbooks.  --Lambiam 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
None on the current Knowledge article. See also ]Gerardw (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: In my humble opinion, this AfD has nothing to do with the current state of the article. It is about the sum potential of an encyclopedic article on the subject. We are (supposed to be) debating whether the article is encyclopedic or not. To that, I say yes. The sources, we'll find later, in due course. Knowledge is continuously growing. The article gives good information. Just let it be.--Coin945 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

National Network News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it was created, it was a copy of this, but that really doesn't make much of a difference. I found a couple mentions after a quick search, but nothing that would pass the WP:GNG. Nolelover 02:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete - not only a hoax, this article was created by a sockpuppet of longtime vandal User:Bertrand101. Please see SPI against User:Lani Cruz, the creator of this article. -WayKurat (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, and my apologies for removing the hoax tag the first time around. Nolelover 04:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that there are no independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Greg Essence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with topical notability guidelines for musicians or in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Only recording is a released single on iTunes today, produced by his sister. Sourcing includes his release on iTunes, a blog, and a link to a list of songs Billboard about smokin' weed. The Billboard site does not mention the subject or his iTune song. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete There is no doubt that musicians who record pot smoking songs can be notable. However, this article seems to be a promotional effort for a guy who released a pot smoking sing today. The essence of the matter is that this particular pot smoking musician is not yet notable. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. The singer has yet to become notable and the phrasing on the article is pretty promotional in tone. Releasing a song does not give you automatic notability, nor does creating a song about using any type of illicit drugs. Article does not pass WP:ARTIST. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I deleted the article under A7 and immediately re-deleted because I had failed to observe the creator's note at talk saying that he'd be expanding it. No opinion on keeping or deleting, but if you vote here, I'd like to remind you to check back periodically to see if anything has been improved. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: Looked at article, still non-notable. I can't find anything myself. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied A7 by CharlieEchoTango ‎(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucian Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to his AllMusic profile, he has been a producer on two albums. Not sure what SNG this falls under, but he appears to fail the WP:GNG. Nolelover 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Preparing to Write Business Reports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Knowledge is not a guide. →Στc. 02:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete: A how to guide. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Getting paid by the letter? Or was the assignment to turn in an essay of ten pages? The internet has taken the world by surprise over the past 15 years. The information found within it is endless, and it gives anybody access to all the details they need for whatever they want to accomplish. Needless to say, the World Wide Web is an excellent database; however, it does have some downturns. Most of the information on the internet is unfiltered, meaning that it comes from a person who may be stating something without knowing much about it. People are often tempted to use the internet as their number one resource, but this is not always the best idea. In order to get the best of the internet, one should definitely use a search engine such as Google or Yahoo. These offer quick web pages that answer any possible question. Blogs which are virtual communities help bring people with the same interests together. This is useful for some enterprises who want all their employees on the same level with the same knowledge. Search tools found on blogs and search engines help people navigate through the endless information found on the web.

    Let's play a game. Let's think of questioons that can't be answered on search engines like Google or Yahoo. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I PRODded it under WP:NOTGUIDE earlier, and I stand by that.--Slon02 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Warren Weinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is only recently significant due to a single event. No coverage outside of this event. Only 4/7 sentences in the article are even about him. v/r - TP 02:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

comment(article creator) i agree 1 event is a concern; however: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." we have here sustained international coverage. npr piece puts context of history of kidnappings. i would prefer to have a reliable source about his world bank experience. hard to say if it will rise to the level of Daniel Pearl. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's not a single little story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15996128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.82.211 (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Brendan Madley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; not a "Major local political figure who has received significant press coverage". Appeared in local newspapers for items of trivial notability. —Andrewstalk 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Andrewstalk 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The consensus below is that there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Puryear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet wikipedia's notability requirement. No significant independent coverage of the individual. Sources used only briefly discuss or simply name the subject. William S. Saturn (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Being the vice presidential nominee of a minor party does not by itself satisfy the notability requirement. WP:N says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The subject has only received trivial mentions in independent sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am well aware of WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. He is not notable because of his VP candidacy, but it is a contribution factor. He is mentioned and quoted extensively. His interview on RT is also an example of in-depth coverage by a RS.--TM 01:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but one source is not enough. There should be "multiple" sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep – Per WP:BASIC, (within Knowledge:Notability (people)) "...multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability...".
—Sources with non-trivial coverage: , , . Northamerica1000 09:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied A7 by Boing! said Zebedee, as commented below. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Redversiongamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company with no reliable sources given. I could not find any third party coverage. Tinton5 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Comedy of Errors (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero significant coverage for this band. The only sources in the article are the official website and a YouTube channel. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 2 December 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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑