Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 6

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 5 October	7 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Murphy's Deli

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

Declined speedy deletion, A7. Notability definitely borderline; but I was unable to find sufficient reliable sourcing to meet WP:CORP. Appears to be a local chain of significant size, but I could find no major coverage, only some menus, phone numbers, forums, and blogs. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. In a gNews search, an unrelated establishment in Providence, RI with the same name had more newspaper coverage than this chain based in Houston, TX. I did find one business journal article on this restaurant chain here. But I don't think that's enough to establish notability. Geoff 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails GNG, as stated before. Chris (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Promise (Sade album). (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Never as Good as the First Time

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

One line lead in the entire article? Surprised this hasn't been nominated before. Pretty sure this fails every part of Knowledge (XXG) rules and doesn't have any notability. Calvin • 23:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, or redirect. I'm a fan, but I don't see the need for this almost-nothing article. Delete, or redirect to the album page--> Promise_(Sade_album). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Promise (Sade album) per WP:NSONG as this song is not of sufficient note to establish a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So Fresh: The Hits of Summer 2012 + The Best of 2011

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

Non-notable, unreleased compilation album. Cmprince (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Per WP:Speedy_Delete A9. Apparently random collection that will come out in November. What part of WP:NOTPROMOTION is not clear? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2011

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

Non-notable compilation album. Cmprince (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I've removed the one link provided in the article (to a sales site), to make this less of a WP:NOTPROMOTION violation, but it still fails WP:GNG. Not reviewed by allmusic, metacritic, or pitchfork, or anywhere else, as far as I can tell. The one WP:RS I could find was to an ARIA charts listing, indicating sales in Australia of between 70,000-140,000 units, but I don't consider this important for a random hits compilation that evidently no one cares about as a compilation. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Was eligible for WP:SK1 as well. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

On the Old Fall River Line

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

Fails WP:NSONGS (no significant high-quality indepedent coverage). Sp33dyphil 22:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. WP:COI notice: I noticed this article in AfD and have spent some time today adding to it:

- Added 20 citations, including to the New York Times, Time Magazine, the New Yorker, Billboard, and the Library of Congress.

- Have built up the main description.

- Added a recordings section, including two, separate top 10 recordings of the song from 1914.

If it is kept, then I'd like to recommend correcting the title--the "i" in "LIne" was inadvertently capitalized. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep as per added references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In light of the recent changes, which added references to assert notability which was previously missing, I'd like to withdraw my request for deletion. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hannah Cornett

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

Contested prod. All previous sources (now reinserted as bare links by anon.) provided do not actually support Cornett's claims. The recent article at deadspin has the relevant details. The only source that actually appears to be on point is IMDB, but it is not a reliable source, and even if correct does not support notability under WP:ENT. Also not notable for the alleged hoax under WP:BLP1E. Cmprince (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete pretty much per nom. No evidence of notability as an actress/athlete, and the deadspin thing, well, BLP1E and claims of harassment and inaccuracy do not make it a promising prospect to build an article on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletewhile it is technicaly possible that she is boarderline notable it's not worth sorting out the mess if she is.©Geni 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep per WP:HOTTIE.--v/r - T P 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete She was borderline keep when I created the article. In my mind, she has moved from that border since. Dismas| 01:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete This person is not notable. Vincelord (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ajax Cricket Club

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

Unable to find any secondary sources on the subject, nothing at all that qualifies under WP:NSPORT, WP:GROUP or WP:GNG. Trusilver 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW is falling. And AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Parmanand Jha

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

This article has cited 28 references among which more than 24 do not work. The article is seriously flawed and does not have any verifiable information. I nominate this page for deletion --DBhuwanSurfer 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC) DBhuwanSurfer 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. He is the Vice President of Nepal, clearly satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. A Google search easily verifies this. Dead links are a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If verifiability is a problem, we can start from a stub. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per Gene93k. Telco (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep, the Vice President of a sovereign state is obviously notable. Deletion is NOT the apt method to deal with problems inside articles. Regarding sources, the article was well sourced until nepalnews.com remodelled their website making all links dead. That doesn't mean that the references are necessarily wrong, just that they need to be dated. There can still be copies of the linked articles in cache of archive.org etc.. --Soman (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree that the VP of a sovereign state is usually notable, but the referencing is in a dire state. The zeenews and BBC links work, but I don't know what the BBC one says - GoogleTranslate says it's in Hindi and gives a nearly incomprehensible translation. If someone with knowledge of the subject and/or the area could do a reference tidy-up, it would help matters. If there is just a speedy keep, no-one will bother and we'll either still have the problem, or we'll have a stub based solely on whatever those two sources say. Peridon (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep AfD is not clean up, try discussing on the article talk page. If you want help improving an article there are more appropriate ways of doing this than AfD. Knowledge (XXG):Cleanup should have been the first port of call. Polyamorph (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps the nominator could explain to us why the article is thought to be flawed. Peridon (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Again this is not an AfD issue, if there is flawed information in the article then it should be removed via normal editing practices, not AfD. Taking the discussion to the article talk page would be a good start. wikiproject Nepal may also be able to help. Polyamorph (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Keep: As others have pointed out, AfD is not the proper venue for article cleanup, and the nom's dereliction of WP:BEFORE is so severe to warrant speculation as to whether this is a bad faith nomination. The article "does not have any verifiable information?" Excuse me? I can't imagine that any such attempt was made. Ravenswing 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Subject is CURRENT VICE-PRESIDENT OF A COUNTRY. No one denies this, not even the nominator, who claims to be a native of this country and is certainly very active on related articles. Can someone alert the WP:SNOW patrol and have them shut this AfD down, already? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Subject is notable, per above. -LtNOWIS (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Linkrot is not a valid reason for deleting an article about the vice-president of a country. First Light (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Commie (slur)

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

Per WP:DICDEF. This is an unreferenced dictionary definition for something that already exists on Wiktionary. Originally prodded, but article creator removed the prod notice. Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A10 criteria. - Redundant article with no relevant information to merge into Communism, which covers the information implied in this article. As that Commie already redirects to Communism, a redirect is not appropriate in this case. Trusilver 22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as dictionary definition, or an unsourced original essay — take your pick. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

~~Send to the gulag~~delete - as noted above, a dictionary definition with no possibility of growth aside from content-forking of Anti-communism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:NOR. WP is not a dictionary.--JayJasper (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a dictionary. If author wants to improve the existing Wiktionary definition, then do so. If there is scope for an encyclopedia entry, then come back with an encyclopedia entry, not this. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete as dictionary definition. First Light (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Fairly apparent there's no support for using the deletion tool here. Courcelles 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Brown

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

In-universe fictional biography that contains nothing more than plot elements from the film and trivial mentions of the character in other media. 100 Greatest Movie Characters is not "significant coverage", and this article fails to meet WP:GNG independent from the Back to the Future franchise. Google search produces fan wiki results and similar links. Google Books search produces nothing that would help meet WP:GNG. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The only problem worth deleting this or any similar articles (i.e. Marty McFly) for is lack of independent sources; long plot summaries can be trimmed. The NYT is generally a reliable source, though it's true that articles solely about this character are hard to find. This one has more to do with the character. Articles like this don't need deletion, they just need some work. §everal⇒|Times 21:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment—In addition to being from reliable third-party publications, sources also need to offer significant coverage of the topic per WP:GNG, which is provided in neither of these sources. Your first source is merely a review of the plot of the second film. It does not provide any detail that would qualify as significant coverage of Emmett Brown. Your second source is about Lloyd's career and mentions that his first on-screen kiss will be during his portrayal of Emmett Brown in the third film. There are mentions of "Emmett Brown," but one article in the NYT with mostly plot details from the film and one or two lines from the director about the character's backstory is not significant coverage of the the topic. This second article belongs linked in Christopher Lloyd's article (or is barely relevant in Back to the Future trilogy). Sottolacqua (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  - From WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A collection of non-trivial references should be sufficient to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep since there appears to be significant coverage from reliable sources about this character. The key is to search for "Doc". There is an entire book about the original film, and there is a book of critical essays about the films. Other books I noticed mentioning "Doc" often were Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era and Jungian Reflections within the Cinema. The character is a significant enough part of coverage about the films that in addition to the coverage being included in film articles, it can be re-formatted to provide a profile of the character in his own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The coverage in search results is mostly about the plot of the film. Mentioning the character in describing the plot, describing time travel, etc. does not meet "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. A Google book search on "Doc Brown" still does not produce results that fit significant coverage, with only one applicable result (WP:ONESOURCE). Sottolacqua (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Your query lists the two books I mentioned. I previewed them and found analysis of the character that can be used. Not to mention the two books about the first film and the set of films; they're definitely not just plot summaries. Which result do you think is the only one applicable? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - That it is not perfect at the moment does not diminish the fact that it is a notable character, a notable search term and a notable article. The character has significant cultural impact alongside Marty McFly.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Sources have to exist for this guy. It's almost impossible for there not to be. _Blake 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Saying "sources must exist" does not address the issue that this topic does not meet WP:GNG. You need to provide the actual sources that you believe to exist. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Well, here is a source which could replace #4(not sure of the reliability of mental_floss.) Also, the "100 Greatest Movie Characters" source does in fact display notability. I don't know why you would say it doesn't. _Blake 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep I'd argue that the "100 Greatest Movie Characters" would, almost without exception, be notable enough for stand-alone articles, and Doc Brown is one of the very best-known characters from 1980s cinema. As for the article being poorly-written and plottish, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- The "100 Greatest Movie Characters" article is not significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. The main argument that this article should be deleted is based upon the failure of the topic to meet WP:GNG, not that it needs cleaned up. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Snow keep With respect to the nom and his not agreeing, multiple available secondary sources DO show this character as being covered in a non-trivial fashion, and notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. Were this a real person, notability would not even be an issue. As we do not have a specific notability criteria set for fictional characters, we instead use existing guidelines and policies. The character is worthy of note and there is too much available information about this iconic character to include elsewhere. Such proper application of guideline and policy is why we have articles on such as Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk that are separate from their series or actor articles. It's how it is done here. Schmidt, 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Weak merge to List of characters in the Back to the Future films: I do not think that there is a large amount of reliable sources that give reception and significance in the real world fro the character as a stand-alone subject, so I believe that it does not meet general notability guideline satisfactorily and there is no concrete evidence that the article can be more than a plot-only description of a fictional work. As such, I believe that merging the character into List of characters in the Back to the Future films is a better solution than keeping the article until concrete evidence shows that the character deserves a stand-alone article, although, personally, I have the impression, not proof, that the character is notable by himself. Jfgslo (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep: there's some sources beginning to appear here. The 100 greatest movie characters list does begin to WP:verify notability. Ideally there would be more sources to give a sense of weight, so we can tell what's important about this character instead of just piling on details. No prejudice against a merge if further sources aren't found. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What Are Records?

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

An unreferenced article on a record label that seems to have no claim to notability. Fails WP:ORG. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Utterly unsourced and spammy introductory section, but a useful set of blue links below. I'd advocate a change to List of bands on What Are Records? after snipping out all the unsubstantiated royalty bull and commentary about "United Interests." This would preserve the utility of the page while erasing verifiability issues. As for notability, there seems to be little taste among wikipedians for gutting out popular culture from the encyclopedia. Utility as a source of in-links trumps rigid adherence to notabilty guidelines in this case, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (chatter) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Mostly a list of links. No reliable sources. Non-notable company. --John Nagle (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: If a purported record label isn't notable - and it isn't - then its alleged roster of bands isn't, either. Even if the article was "useful" - a suggestion for which no evidence has been tendered - relevant policies and guidelines do not allow utility to trump notability ... quite the reverse. No reliable sources, and none to be found. Ravenswing 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Elliott Seitz

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

Autobiography which clearly fails notability with no reliable sources references are primary, wikipedia or blog Theroadislong (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Autobiography by non-notable. 99.168.81.210 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete No independent sources I could find. EEng (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete non notable, non encyclopedic and no reason to be here...Modernist (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yasser Morales

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

Non-notable musician fails WP:MUSICBIO. BLPPROD was refused with the addition of a source (Metallyrica) that is likely unreliable. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Obscure musician and even if that band is notable, which it doesn't appear to be that much, he was in it for what, three years? CityO fSilver 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Vega Brothers (characters)

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

Unsourced orphaned stub about two movie characters. Vic Vega speedily deleted 23 January 2008. Vincent Vega merged to List of Pulp Fiction characters following deletion discussion (Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Vincent Vega), which was later redirected to Pulp Fiction (film)#Cast 18 March 2010 following a merge discussion on that page. Any notable details about Vince or Vic Vega are discussed in the Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete per nom (oh no inclusionists are going to whine about that! Silly me for agreeing!). I patrolled this article, considered deletion, couldn't be arsed dealing with the inevitable nonsense that would ensue. → ROUX ₪ 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article lacks a source to support its entire premise -- that these characters from separate movies are brothers. I've heard that idea before, but I thought it was just fan speculation, not canon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- That the article currently lacks a source is irrelevant to whether it can be sourced. The idea that they are brothers comes from Tarantino himself. Sciretta, Peter (April 7, 2007). "Quentin Tarantino talks Vega Brothers, the Pulp Fiction & Reservoir Dogs sequel/prequel". Slashfilm. As discussed in Quentin Tarrantino#Other potential projects, he was considering a film about them together but gave up on the idea. This is also mentioned in Pulp Fiction, and should also be mentioned in Reservoir Dogs (if only in a footnote). But a mention is really all it merits. I see no substance to justify an article, nor is the title useful as a redirect (The Vega Brothers, sans parenthetical, already redirects to Tarantino's article), so delete. postdlf (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Postdlf. We have two characters of the same surname that have not actually been paired as brothers, so the only coverage about the pair is the film that Tarantino had hoped to do. That planned film can be covered at the director's article. However, I would be fine with a Vincent Vega article if coverage about Pulp Fiction also covered him in detail. The film has a ton of coverage, though it is hard to tell how much Vincent is profiled in them. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: The fictional characters do not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject. Jfgslo (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete as original research. It's an interesting rumor but not basis for an article. To what extent the rumor is out there, it might warrant a mention in the article about Quentin Tarantino. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I noted above, it's not original research as the concept that the two film characters are brothers is easily verifiable online as coming from Tarantino himself. He, and at least Madsen as well, have discussed it as a potential film project in multiple interviews, which is already mentioned in Tarantino's article. So you're calling for the right result, but for the wrong reasons. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The term "routine coverage" is always open to interpretation. Reasonable minds will differ, and reasonable minds have split down the middle here. Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete under WP:NOTNEWS. Article hasn't had any substantial editing or expansion since the last AfD discussion. The story is sad, but the article lacks any larger historical context, and I think it's unlikely that time will provide this additional context/perspective. A simple Google search reveals nothing new since March/April. How is this fundamentally different from any of thousands of other cases? AstroCog (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

~~Speedy~~ Keep Which bit of WP:NOTNEWS does this article violate? It's not first-hand account of a breaking event, it's not a routine event, it's not about an individual involved in the story. In other words, the reason given for deletion is not valid.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Response It violates #2 in WP:NOTNEWS. All the references for this article are news articles all from within a week's time span of when the story was reported. Since then...nothing. I think it's pretty clear that this is not an "enduring" story, at least not in reliable sources.AstroCog (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Response Thanks for clarification. I have modified my comment accordingly. I still disagree- I think that #2 of WP:NOTNEWS is there to stop articles on minor local events and celeb-related trivia. The case has some unusual features and it isn't a routine event despite what Mean World Syndrome might lead us to believe.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment I disagree. There are child abductions that take place somewhere in the industrialized world that get significant press coverage almost every day. Does that mean they all get their own articles? An abducted or murdered child, while sad, is not encyclopedic barring some extremely unusual circumstances that make it so (such as in the case of Amy Mihaljevic.) Trusilver 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Response There are obviously unusual circumstances here- the fact that it was a double disappearance, the fact that the case is unsolved, the fact that it took six years for the disappearance of two children in "the industrialized world" to be noticed. That does not happen every day.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Response Case also mentioned in June 2011 Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Verifiability does not mean notability. While a sad story, the article is unencyclopedic. I also agree that the article fail to pass WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:NOTTEMP. I don't want this to sound anywhere near as harsh as it is going to, but a child abduction, barring other circumstances that would make it so, is not inherently notable. Trusilver 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Misunderstanding or misapplication of NOTNEWS #2; what we have here can hardly be compared to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Also, there is further news since March/April, even though it doesn't show up in a Google search. --Lambiam 07:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Response If a total of six sentences of updated material about the trial of one of the parents involved doesn't count as "routine" coverage, then what is it? What is fundamentally unusual about this case? The parents involved seem crooked, the abduction of the kids is sad, but I still fail to see how this story has a enduring impact giving it a special place in a larger societal context.AstroCog (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Response Regarding the lack of press coverage: I could be wrong, but I think that there are rules about what the press can say about an ongoing case. That's certainly the case in the UK. The First Amendment makes the situation in the US more complex of course.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - has had more coverage per further news since March/April. Dont see any reason for deletion at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Leaning towards userify, as this looks like a routine (but tragic) double murder. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Stuartyeates's Userfy suggestion if anyone is willing to take the article. I think the nominator's rationale is fair but the article is in good shape and circumstances may change in a way that makes the subject matter indubitably notable in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 09:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
What does "userify"/"userfy" mean? Help please! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Reply on my talk page if you like Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Userfy means to delete the article and place the deleted article as a subpage of the creating editor (or anyone else who happens to want it) for improvement and possibly reintegration into the encyclopedia at a later date should something happen to prove notability. Trusilver 11:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, Tigerboy1966. I should have used an internal link to the WP:USERFY article which explains the process. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 17:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Organic Surrealism

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

This is an unreferenced essay, an exercise in original research and synthesis, based on an editor's reading of Surrealism. There is no such thing as "organic surrealism," this is simply a term made up by said editor. For these reasons, the article should be deleted. RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

keep—actually, there is such a thing as organic surrealism. (sorry they're all snippet view, evidently art historians are touchy about drm.) there are hundreds more, and the fact that many of them mention the same group of artists, including miro and matta, make it seem doubtful that it's just a random confluence of the two words, but a recognized genre. finally, there are four sentences on the subject in EB online (in the surrealism article, i forgot to say before), in which it is called one of the two major poles of the surrealist movement, and said to be synonymous with emblematic surrealism and absolute surrealism. i agree that the article is crap, though. but there are plenty of sources available, so it ought to stay.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete WP:NEO Neologism. Appeared in a press release and a gallery opening announcement, but no reliable sources. --John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- seriously?— did you even hit the book search link in the find sources template up there? here is the britannica online article on surrealism, which specifically discusses organic surrealism.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - There are a variety of art books that identify organic surrealism as a form of surrealism. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Keep, after alf.laylah.wa.laylah's wholesale rewrite. I suggest this AfD be closed. Discussion on article talk page should commence as to further improvement. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Davide Vagnetti

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. He does have three appearances for the San Marino national team, but these were in the Regions Cup, meaning they are not full internationals. Coverage of this tournament is trivial. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life 13:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WindizUpdate

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct, not notable in any way A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note to Admin: A review by an admin familiar with content licensing and attribution might be a good idea. See my !vote below. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Wow. Not one shred of evidence of notability, no results in a news search other than a single forum post complaining that using the service had messed up his computer. The previous AfD closed with a merge result, somewhat startlingly, since the sole rationale the two Keep/Merge proponents proferred was that they tried it and liked it. Unimproved in years, orphaned, let's just flush this one. Ravenswing 16:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - There is no coverage about this initiative that I could find in reliable sources aside from a mention in this Dummies book. The previous AFD resulted in a decision of "merge" to "Microsoft Update". If the material was merged, then we need to be concerned about attribution. But looking at the history, there does not appear to have been any actual merge. And in any case, that article has since been merged/redirected to Windows Update. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Girls' Generation Vs. Big Bang

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

Contested PROD, rationale was "WP:HAMMER". If this isn't it, I don't know what is. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe this is a blatant hoax. Girls' Generation and Big Bang in 45 episodes in a variety show, of all things? Announced a year ahead of broadcast? In the state Big Bang is in at the moment (Daesung's car accident controversy and G-Dragon's recent marijuana scandal)? Not buying it, honestly. — ξ 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not either, but I don't know Korean at all, so I'd like to play it safe on the off-chance this is just crystal-ball gazing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: even if it is not a hoax, the article consists of a collection of unverifiable speculation and it is too soon per WP:CRYSTAL--Michaela den (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: the original author is just adding hoaxes here and to Yuri (South Korean singer), even deleting the original AfD tag. None of it is verifiable. Evaders99 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. UBLP, no references added during a week. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy Powers (actor)

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

Unremarkable and unreferenced BLP. Bit-part actor falls well below the bar for notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory of every single actor - that's why we have IMDB. Biker Biker (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete no evidence that he really meets WP:ACTOR. Strongly agree with the nominator's comment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. The growing body of this actor's work is verifiable and appears to push slightly at the instruction at WP:ENT. Toward the nominator's wish to direct readers to places outside these pages, what exists in a non-RS database is irrelevant to Knowledge (XXG) as we are not them... however, such databases allow editors hints to encourage a more diligent search... through which "hint" I was able to easily confirm this actor's character of Franklin Winthrop as being significant to Oz (TV series) We can judge an actor by the most notable projects with which they had a role, or consider the length and depth of their careers, and we do our readers a disservice by looking only at the least and then declaring all as insignificant. Heck, even the most notable actor may have had small roles. IE: Sylvester Stallone had a large number of insignificant or uncredited roles in the beginning of his career... such as Stud, Extra at Wedding, Subway Thug No.1, Discothèque Patron, Youth in Park, Young Man in Crowd, Mafioso, Man on Street, etc. We do not judge by the least. Schmidt, 03:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bro (online subculture)

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

Non-notable, unencyclopedic topic that is not clearly defined by the article, which is a tenuously held together string of media references (almost all of which are tongue-in-cheek). The sources cited include a LinkedIn profile, a Facebook page, a chat, a comedy performance misconstrued as relating to the topic, a profile of a business of little note, and a tongue-in-cheek slideshow (which is used as the only source for the entire history section). The only reliable sources relate to etymology, making the verifiable information no more than a dicdef. No evidence that reliable sources can be found. Feeeshboy (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete...and recreate as a functional article. I'm willing to believe that an article on Bros could be well-supported in detailed in much the way of Hipster (contemporary subculture). This clearly isn't that article, and referring to it as an online subculture might just be erroneous. §everal⇒|Times 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the talk page indicate that this page was created as a class project. My vote remains the same. §everal⇒|Times 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Turns out it's not just one class project, but one in a set of class projects. See User:LeshedInstructor for more information. §everal⇒|Times 16:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep And change the tag line to be "contemporary subculture". I am the article's creator and yes, this was created as part of a class project, but I also believe there is potential for a well supported article like Hipster (contemporary subculture), as §everal⇒|Times mentioned. --Lenwomp (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

as stated in the page for Knowledge (XXG):Article Rescue Squadron, "Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement." I'd like to file this article for a "rescue". More reliable sources are needed, but this is a notable topic. --Lenwomp (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are these reliable sources? Please show us that they exist. The article is near nonsense. LadyofShalott 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Dictdef, WP:NEO, WP:OR. --John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete A non-notable neologism with an impressive number of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Trusilver 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: We've been over the alleged "bro" culture at AfD before. My POV remains as it has in prior similar AfDs; that this is a dicdef at best, a neologism short of that, a WP:BULLSHIT matter the rest of the time, and that a faction has claimed in each and every one that reliable sources are out there, somewhere, maybe. How about, next time out, that such sources are produced as a prerequisite to creating an article ... as, in fact, they are supposed to be? Ravenswing 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What similar AFDs have there been? Dream Focus 09:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as complete BS. Even if this were a notable topic nothing but the word "bro" and "reflist" should remain. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - a bunch of tripe. In Knowledge (XXG) terms, it's a combination of WP:DICDEF and WP:OR. LadyofShalott 01:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite and rename "Bros" are unfortunately a real thing, also called "frat boys". The type of guys who talk about nothing but sex, sports, and how drunk they got, are athletic and shallow, and enjoy humiliating others. Read through this article in Time magazine for example. I don't see this as an "online" subculture, since they exist off the internet as well, and have for quite some time now. Having an article for just "Bros" might make sense. The current article has most of its content referenced to places that aren't reliable sources. Finding sources is difficult since "bros" gets results from "Super Mario Bros" to any number of other things. Dream Focus 09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand this (and your link) correctly, the title is almost correct (that is, one word is correct, but not the "online subculture" part), but the article is incorrect and should be rewritten so that it's about something else completely, for which it is difficult to find sources besides an article from Time (according to which "bros" are "frat-boys and frat-boys wannabes"--pretty dicdeffy, it seems to me). Drmies (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Rename it Bro subculture. The aspects of their culture is mentioned. Google news archive search for "Bro culture" has some results. Dream Focus 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Referencing? Have the authors of this article even heard of the concept? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete as (mostly) utter nonsense. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Still a UBLP after a week. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Acharya Jayantsen Suriswarji

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

Declined BLPPROD, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this Acharya. Langauge and cultural familiarity issues may be blocking my attempts to find appropriate sources. joe decker 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep for now. This article has been around for almost five years and then was tagged as unreferenced and proposed for deletion on the same day. Is that sensible? Surely you tag an article as a warning and then start a deletion process if it doesn't improve WP:ATD#Tagging. Give it a chance Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment That's awfully close to WP:LONGTIME. --joe decker 02:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Response. The point isn't that the article has been around a long time. It's that there was no time given to respond to the tagging. Actually it was nominated for deletion and THEN tagged which is surely the wrong way around Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Respectfully, I'm afraid we disagree. Quite a fraction of the community believed last year that unsourced BLPs should be deleted en masse and without discussion, while I strongly disagree with that position as well, it's still my sense that the community is not willing to extend a great deal of patience to unsourced and unsourcable biographies of living people. I would also disagree with your suggestion that there is or was "no time given to respond to the tagging". This AfD should run at least seven days, and my selection of AfD (rather than PROD) was specifically designed to increase the chances that sources establishing notability would be found. Moreover, I *declined* a BLPPROD on this that had run for ten days before sending this to the slower-paced AfD process. If you'd like to save this article, I recommend actually trying to demonstrate notability. And I sincerely hope you find something, I wasn't able to. --joe decker 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Tigerboy, do you have genuine reason to believe that reliable sources exist demonstrating this subject's notability? If so, then why are you not adding them to the article? If you do not, in fact, have any reliable sources to proffer, then upon what legitimate policy grounds are you advocating keeping the article? The article has had a chance - during the four years in which no substantive improvements were made, during the ten days of the BLPPROD in which no reliable sourcing was added. No evidence the subject passes the GNG, and there's nothing in Knowledge (XXG) policy - quite the opposite, actually - allowing for the indefinite retention of unsourced BLPs pending, well, people not working on them. Ravenswing 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Our policies on biographies of living people do not allow us to keep such articles if they are unsourced. I'm open to changing my mind is some sources can be offered but at this point I can find none. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. (It's possible that there are pages out there in Hindi about this person using a variant name, if they come to light prior to closing, ping my userpage and I'll reevaluate.) Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete - original author agrees it is not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

MYMOSA

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

Non-notable organization. No independent sources. Google search mainly comes up with the project's own website and unrelated pages. GNews gives not a single hit. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ferhat Ozcep

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

Article on a Turkish associate professor. Sole references are to Marquis' Who's Who, his CV, and a book that he has published. The Web of Science lists 11 publications with a total of 9 citations and an h-index of 2. Too early: does not meet WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC).
Delete as does not satisfy the requirements in WP:Prof. Possible conflict of interest since the user Geofizica who created the article has no contributions outside of this article.Polyamorph (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. He appears to have published prolifically but that is not a notability criterion unless his publications have been taken note of by others. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. And rename to Elder law in India. The copyright concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant 15:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rights of older persons in India

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

Unencyclopedic. The article's main aim is to bring awareness to aged citizens of India about their rights. It also fails WP:N. — Abhishek 14:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Elder law in India is a subject that could support an article, I think. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete due to copyright concerns. As a topic, this is viable, and probably better under a different title as pointed out above. However, this article appears to have been assembled by copying or closely paraphrasing bits and pieces of material grabbed off the web. The article veers from well formed high level of writing in English, to parts which are much less so. Look at the snippet "Surveys have found that every 6th person living in urban areas in the country does not get proper food, every third old person does not get proper medicine or health care in old age and every second old person does not receive due respect or good treatment from family member or society." and compare to this. Material also appears to have been lifted from this, and also paraphrased from here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - As noted above, this is likely an encyclopediatic subject; however, given the way the article is at the moment, it needs to be blown up and started over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Whpq. Actually i want to help, but sorry, Whpq have a point there, why don't the creator make it encyclopedic? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Tagged for rescue. As stated above, this is a potentially valuable encyclopedic topic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - The article needs copy-editing and rewriting, but appears to be quite salvageable. I've begun the process of rewriting this article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Moving this article to the title, "Elder law in India" would be a more precise title to use. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep I Googled various things from the article to check, and I don't see any copyright problems at all. This is obviously a notable topic and has valid content in it. Finding coverage to verify and reference the various sections of it should not be a problem at all. I'll get to work on it now. Dream Focus 23:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep needs work, probably by someone with knowledge of Indian law, but certainly salvageable. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep and rename - Per in the article: U.N. source, Government of India source and The Hindu source. Rename to: "Elder law in India". Northamerica1000 07:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep and rename This is definately salvageable, could be rewriten and turned into a proper artical, but a rename might be good, "Elder law in India" sounds right. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Delete unless it gets some serious repair work, but that seems to be coming, so ... Clearly an encyclopedic subject (agree with the rename proposal) but would need to be significantly rewritten - right now it seems more like an essay about a noble cause than an encyclopedic coverage of elder law. --Philosopher 04:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I've significantly cleaned up and copy-edited the article. Northamerica1000 02:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The parts with original research can be removed, and the article can be moved to Elder law in India or Elderly care in India. Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) seems to have edited the article to address the copyright concerns. utcursch | talk 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Shayan Munshi

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

This was a proposed deletion that seemed borderline to me, so I objected. The given reason for the prod was: "Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT." Munshi's been in a few films in supporting roles, but a quick search seems to show he is much better known for his involvement in the Jessica Lall trial. For the record, I'm a keep. Cmprince (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - per Cmprince, Munshi was barely notable in film but became notorious in the Lall trial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - He acted in important roles, and major roles at least in two movies (Jhankaar Beats and The Bong Connection). Also, his involvement in Jesica Lall case is noteworthy. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete/Merge? - I came across this article while working on unreferenced BLPs. I found the two references regarding the legal case but none to support his acting career as noteworthy - therefore I suggested "Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT". Looking further maybe WP:BIO1E fits and it should be merged into Murder_of_Jessica_Lall#Judgement? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Quite interesting. This fellow was officially declared a liar by the Delhi High Court in 2006 and 5 years later faced perjury charges. This shows us that he made a very bad decision and got caught. As it made the press and has coverage for an extended period, his legal problem is worth speaking about in the article. But that negative press should not detract from his already having met WP:ENT. My thought here is that despite the generally negative aspect of most of the 200+ sources speaking toward this fellow from 2005 to present, nearly all of the sources also give us decent information of the man and his career apart from the trial aspect. Meeting WP:ENT means his roles must be significant and the productions notable. If they are, then no matter the negative aspect of the sources, the career becomes verifiable. By way of a cogent example, the undoubtly notable Fatty Arbuckle had a great deal more negative press when arrested and tried for rape and murder... an event which put a big dent in his career. However, and in spite of that negativity and the BLP1E of Arbuckle's 3 manslaughter trials, his notability was found to exist both apart from and as part of that years-long legal issue. More cogent, is that Arbuckle is mentioned in the alleged victim's article, just as she is mentioned in his, and no need has been found to delete or merge either one into the other. In this AFD, and although Shayan's years-long notoriety bleeds over into almost all coverage of his acting, his acting is the a constant which is NOT a "one event". Schmidt, 09:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. without prejudice to recreation as a redirect Salvio 11:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Castelle

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

Castelle does not pass WP:CRIME. Information on Castelle can be found in the Lucchese crime family#Capos section. Vic49 (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Am inclined to delete. Castelle was an underboss for a while, but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about his time in that job. Rogermx (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Minor gangster, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Lucchese crime family#Capos. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CRIME, minor criminal. --Cox wasan (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Billboard Ringtones number-one chart of 2007

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

This is a Billboard chart of minimal notability, if at all. Lists for minor and component charts such as this have been deleted multiple times in the past. I see no evidence of lists for other years besides this one. Even the article for the chart itself (Hot Ringtones) redirects to Billboard (magazine). - eo (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. I'm sorry Mchart89 but there is a clear consensus here that this company does not pass WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Global Reach Partners

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

I am not 100% sure of my case, but this looks much like advertising. The company itself is maybe notable, but also not very convincing. Not as much Google hits as you might expect from a noteworthy company. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. a foreign exchange broker..... It provides foreign exchange services to corporate businesses and private individuals. O RLY? The more you try to argue notability in Knowledge (XXG) in the article itself, the more obvious the spam becomes. This one tries to parlay obviously incidental coverage (Over the past ten years Global Reach Partners have made many appearances on global television networks, commentating on economic and political events that impact on global currencies....) and petty trade awards (In April 2011 Global Reach Partners achieved The Carbon Neutral Company certification.) in hopes of getting the spam article kept. It seems obvious that this article was inserted by a publicist who's made a superficial study of WP:N, hoping to get a client a Knowledge (XXG) article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- The changes have been amended. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchart89 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No independent sources are provided and I cannot find any, so it doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. §everal⇒|Times 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have amended the sources provided as well as the first point made. Preceding comment added by Mchart89 (talk 20:11,6 October 2011 (UTC)
  - As stated in WP:CORP, "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." I only see two sources, one of which is a description of the company. The other appears to require some kind of login credentials. The article is just a stub now so I'm ambivalent about deletion, but it won't progress beyond a stub without more detailed independent sources. §everal⇒|Times 17:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have amended the changes so that they fulfill the WP:GNG requirements. Adding many more notable, independent and reliable sources, hope this helps to verify the page. Here is also a similar page which has been verified http://en.wikipedia.org/HiFX Mchart89 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  - I have axed out everything what was not relevant. You still have to proof that the company is noteworthy by giving reliable third party sources. Is it a coincidence that there is a marketing- en promotion campaign running? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added third party sources after following http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources and extended the article so that it is not a stub. I think its just coincidental timing. Is there any other amendments I need to make? really hope this meets the spec now.Mchart89 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really think that the information about their move and the info about their sponsorships really tells something about the company? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Not entirely, the 10.5billion transactions made, the 130 currencies which they deal with, the expert commentary they give on the foreign currency market on broadcasters such as BBC, CNN and CNBC is but that got deleted, I have added more relevant information and referenced it so I hope this is alight. It is my first article on wikipedia so I need your help so if there is any more advice you could give me to improve the article I would be very grateful. .Mchart89 (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This is proving quite difficult to understand and provide the right third party sources.if there is still further amendments is it possible to gain further contact phone/e-mail about what constitutes correct sources as unfortunately I am still unclear. Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.Mchart89 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Smerdis, this is totally WP:SPAM. Nothing special or noteworthy about this company. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading WP:SPAM I have removed the Tommy Hill and GBmoto sponsorship so that it fits with the requirements and that there is no spam on the article.Mchart89 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Florida Championship Wrestling#Female wrestlers. and semiprotect Courcelles 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashley Miller (wrestler)

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

Non-notable, no significant coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:ATHLETE. The article was created by gaming the system at AfC (a redirect was requested and, once created, turned into a full-blown article); attempts to turn it into a redirect again were all reverted by IP editors, but notability concerns were not addressed. Huon (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Surely the solution to the problem identified by the nominator is to semi-protect the redirect, rather than delete it? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect and protect - reccomend reverting to here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate Dodgeball

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

this article appears to be nonsense. It looks like a part copy of Dodgeball, Ultimate Dodgeball fromn the British Heart Foundation and Extreme Dodgeball and not as original as the article claims it to be. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. The article is not "nonsense," which would make it eligible for speedy, but it fails WP:GNG. I'm also going to nominate Extreme Dodgeball for the same reason.--~T P W 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I decided to stay on the safe side while nominating this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep I recommend tagging and improving. It fulfills WP:GNP. It is played on many university campusesin organized leagues. rules here. Google Books and Google News--Ryan.germany (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Reads as a clear NFT case. Certainly, redundant to the main dodgeball article and probably not even worth a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gemini (COST)

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

Yet another Europroject where the author seems to think that independent references are not needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

~~Comment~~ (I'm now a Delete, see below) - well it certainly looks terrible, and the links provided are certainly internal to the project so useless as 3rd-party verifiable sources. That doesn't mean sources can't be found. Is deletion the right response here? Googling does turn up journals, conferences etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete I'm a member of such a COST network myself and we have indeed even published a meeting report of our first meeting in a peer-reviewed journal. However, publishing is what academics do and only if others would start writing about our network (small chance...) would it become notable. The same is the case here. The network members do research, present data at meetings, and publish articles: nothing out of the ordinary. The same is the case here and I don't see anything that makes this particular case of Europrojectcruft notable. --Crusio (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, better Delete it then! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have written some of this article. This was my first attempt to add something to Knowledge (XXG). I admit it is not perfect but I had hopped in time It can be edited and revised to become better. Hence, I am a bit confused why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirezafazeli (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the basic problem is that it neither shows why the subject is 'Notable' - i.e. why Knowledge (XXG) readers should be interested, why it is something out of the ordinary, worth recording in an encyclopaedia; nor that the subject is 'Verifiable', i.e. that there are serious, good, reliable independent sources outside the circle of people involved in some way with the project. At the moment those of us who've looked at it don't think so; if you can prove otherwise, the article will stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks. I am learning the life here. I need to read more. I am also asking others in my group that may have more experience to join in and help to make it to fit to the standards of Knowledge (XXG) and show why it deserves to be maintained in Knowledge (XXG). How much time we have before you completly remove/delete it? Even writing these comments, I am not sure I am doing it correct and this is really the place or the way you do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alirezafazeli (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete can't find any third party sources to demonstrate notability. Polyamorph (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Neo-relativity

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

Neologism related to OPERA experiment speed of light findings from unpublished sci-fi author Rajagopal Kamath 06:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The context in which the subject is found in the literature (scholar and books) is hardly sufficient to have a serious article it about here. DVdm (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:ORIGINAL. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced, fails to establish notability, and academic notability seems doubtful to me because it looks dubious from a physics standpoint (tachyons are well-understood and don't require overturning relativity). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep.A new idea based on the results of neutrino experiment. The authror/editor should expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sldgehmr (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin The above user was blocked as a sock account of the article creator. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. The neutrino experiment is very recent and the faster than light result very much unconfirmed and unlikely. There has not been sufficient time for any new theories to have become accepted by the physics community and hence no reliable sources are available to support this article. Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. WP:OR, and WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete non-notable neologism at this point and per the arguments mentioned above already--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete unsourced OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Scope for improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.83.251 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 111.92.83.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note to closing admin - Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Gameseeker/Archive, this IP address is likely a sock of the article creator. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced, fails notability, etc. See WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was tossed in the slammer. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

List of criminal gangs in Oakland, California

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

The list is entirely based on a single document that reflected the what was happening in the mid 1990's. Not really much evidence that any of the listed gangs are still there. In the mean time, the outdated list has become a playground for fake entries and assorted vandalism. Seems like it is contrary to WP:NOTEVERYTHING.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Given that the single source for this article is over 17-years-old, a more appropriate name for this article is List of criminal gangs that used to exist in Oakland, California. The subject matter of Oakland street gangs certainly deserves a place in Knowledge (XXG), however, the best place for that is Crime in Oakland, California where there is currently no mention of gangs at all. Location (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: A directory of non notable gangs. Mattg82 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Hey -- who you calling non-notable!? I oughta cap your ass for that! EEng (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Try expanding another article on crime in the region. Dzlife (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lie. Lies. Lying

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

Unencyclopedic Zerbu 04:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

delete—per nominator. this is a really weird page here. possibly a candidate for a speedy as patent nonsense?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete, A3 or G3, pick'em - Article creator removed a speedy tag already once. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done nomination. Kosm1fent 07:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The discussion has demonstrated that the article is clearly not a copyright violation, and that the article meets the notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant 15:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Great Greeks

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

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete – No reliable third-party sources about this poll, other than this article (in Greek) on Kathimerini, which is criticizing their choosing methods. Kosm1fent 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - As a nationally-networked television programme, this meets the notability criteria for wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which notability criteria? Kosm1fent 15:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  - These: Knowledge (XXG):TVSERIES#Programming Deb (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Firstly, WP:TVSERIES alone does not justify notability ("Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable "– my bold). Also, the second paragraph says "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.", which absence is exactly the point i made in my first comment. Kosm1fent 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. First, I note that at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the two editors above who have !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clear now that this is not copyvio. The problem now is notability, and there is no evidence that this article passes WP:GNG. Kosm1fent 09:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that some of us have differing views as to whether it is notable. How, btw, do you find it any less notable than List of Greeks?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that list obviously needs (more) references to justify notability for every individual who's in there. But yes, i think it's more notable that the TV show "Great Greeks" (which shouldn't be treated as a list). Kosm1fent 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They are both lists. Why do you think the indicated one -- chosen only by one or more editors -- more notable than a poll by an RS?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Matthew Thompson 01:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Belg der Belgen

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

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete But I'm biased in that I don't think any of these "greatest" lists are notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. First, I note that at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - As discussed above, this is (a) not copyvio, and (b) notable. Also (c) the vast AfD spam of the nominator, both with these and with coats-of-arms/flag pages, deserves a application of soggy seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

El Español de la Historia

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

Keep - nationally networked television programme. Deb (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. As was explained at length at the indicated AfD, there is obviously no copyvio. None at all. If there were, we would have to delete (and no press could reflect) the results of Academy Award polls, and Gallup Polls, and the like. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991)) was already set forth at the above-indicated AfD. See also (with the same conclusion) the failed AfDs at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 greatest Romanians and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Greatest Britons; and note that copyvio wasn't even claimed in the failed Afd at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Greatest American.

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of two dozen AfDs by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Nominator is mistaken in this generic non-notability claim about articles whose topic is a list published elsewhere. If simply reproducing that list, it would indeed quite likely be a copyvio, and thereby a reason for speedy deletion. But that has no bearing on the issue of notability. There, the criterion is whether the topic of the article has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. First, I note that at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement .... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."

Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with other !voter, who has also !voted keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.

Keep These lists are very useful for finding very notable biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Clearly not a copyvio , as has been shown above, and equally clearly justified by notability. The supposed policy against such lists is entirely the invention of the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment; Snow. Inasmuch as there is no support whatsoever for this nomination, and much disagreement with it, if someone wishes to close it at some point as a "SNOW" that would seem appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was EX-TER-MIN-ATE. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who story chronology

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely original research. Article's references are attributed to inferences, observations, and speculation ("suggests", "seems", etc.). The article has admitted it is unverifiable since its inception (see the third paragraph of the lead). Previous AFD asked for better sources and none have been produced. The article self-consciously admits it can only guess.

Even if we weren't just guessing, this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that inherently fails the policy on what Knowledge (XXG) is not, namely not plot summaries. There are no third party sources that WP:verify notability of this chronology outside the notability of the Doctor Who series itself, and without any reception or significance this fork will fail the policy on WP:WAF. See the policy to WP:AVOIDSPLITs.

See this AFD for similar discussion and reasoning. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition from nominator: Forgot about Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (2nd nomination), which is a fork of this article with a different in-universe perspective.

I suggest this page not be deleted. It is constantly and meticulously updated. It gets hundreds of views every day. Very few entries are unsubstantiated and entries are rarely contested. Please retain this page. Thank you. Cumbersnatch (talk) 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Nearly completely unreferenced and infested with WP:OR. WP:NOT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as WP:OR. Violates what Knowledge (XXG) is not as a WP:PLOT only WP:CONTENTFORK. Someone put some work into this that should be hosted at their website or at Wikia. Dzlife (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: This article appears to be original research by synthesis and there is no indication that it meets the general notability guideline by itself. This is a plot-only description of a fictional work and there is not a single reliable secondary source to presume that the topic is notable. Even the article itself mentions that the chronology is according to the personal perspective of a fictional character within the series, not from a real-world perspective, so this means that the article only has a in-universe perspective, which does not justify its inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) without reception or significance. Furthermore, the content itself has no inline references to backup the content. Instead, it has multiple notes about the interpretation of primary sources, which is original research. Even considering the article a list, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the subject of the list as presented in the article has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, it is not an appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). As the list also fall into what Knowledge (XXG) is not, it is also not suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Because of this, this article is redundant content fork from the several Doctor Who-related articles that alread cover the plot of the series, and, thus, this article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Fancruft. Banish to Wikia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Only useful for a very small amount of people. who really cares what order events occur in? I immagine some Doctor Who fans don't even care about this. 81.2.71.33 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Absolute fancruft. Neutrality 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Exterminate! As you get towards the new season it just looks exactly like the list of Doctor Who Serials page. Overall it seems hard to understand and slightly pointless because if you know the episode order you obviously know The Doctor's timeline, because the series centers around him... so just look at the serials page... ? Betsi-HaP (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this article includes more than just the television episodes, but also includes novels, audio dramas, and comics, which all take place between the episodes. Many of these stories do include placement notes, others have placement made clear by the presence and absence of companions. I will grant, however, that other stories' placements aren't quite as clear, and that any precise placement of these is original research. Bartender2347 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Releasing life

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

Original research essay. Fundamentally unencyclopedic content that would require a complete rewrite. No indication that the topic meets the notability guidelines. causa sui (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Unsorced. Appears to be original research. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Gábor Koltai

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

This BLP is not well-sourced in English (almost all sources are untranslated Hungarian). Subject is non-notable; article is entirely about a single legal issue. Miniapolis (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:BLP violation. This is not really a biography but rather a coatrack to discuss pending and as-yet unproven criminal charges. The author is a single purpose account whose work here is entirely devoted to publicizing these accusations on Knowledge (XXG). Cullen Let's discuss it 03:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete as an obvious attack piece and BLP violation for a non-notable person. In my opinion it should be speedy.Jarhed (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom and Cullen328. - DonCalo (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. No reason to delete has been advanced. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 03:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bob Shaheen

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

LongLiveMusic (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep LongLiveMusic, please give a reason why you think the article should be deleted. Shaheen is discussed in many reliable sources as the #2 man to Adnan Khashoggi. The current article needs a dramatic trim and rewrite to the neutral point of view. Deletion is not the solution to the article's problems. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy procedural keep - No deletion rationale given by nom; invalid nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy procedural keep - No qualification for article deletion was provided by the nominator. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment I trimmed away lots if unreferenced promotional language, and added some new material and reliable sources backing it up. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Shyju Mathew

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

I don't think this Indian Christian evangelist meets WP:GNG. He has a slick website, but 0 google news or google books hits, and I'm not really finding any independent reliable sources among his google hits. He has <300 followers on Twitter, which to me is a sign that's he probably not that successful or popular. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete - blanked by author. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Shapack

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

Non-notable businessman. The article is about the building he manages, not him, and notability is not inherited. Contest PROD, removed (see Talk:Andrew Shapack with essentially a claim that he is notable because he is the CEO. Ravendrop 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note Article (moved by creator to A. Shapack) has now been speedy deleted due to blanking/request by original author. This can now be closed. Ravendrop 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. consensus was clear even before the relisting (former admin close) Secret 05:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of villages in Hinthada District

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

While this article does include a *lot* of data, presenting a list of unlinked village names isn't really useful to anybody, and lots of these villages probably aren't notable. --Rossheth | Talk to me 17:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep I see no policy that a list of settlements violates. How is this any different from any of the hundreds of articles in Category:Lists of populated places? "Not useful" is not a reason to delete, and anyways this seems highly useful. In the past, any individual verifiable populated places get kept at AFD. So any one of these might be notable individually. But certainly a list of all 900 settlements in an area of Burma is collectively notable and exactly the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopedia. FYI I'm in the process of splitting this into townships (see e.g. List of villages in Hinthada Township) at which point this article will become a disambiguation page, so the component articles will be of a slightly more manageable size. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Divide information into separate articles and change this page to a redirect to Hinthada District. Although this seems to be legitimate content to include in Knowledge (XXG), per Calliope, this article calls on {{coord}} so many times that it hits the template limit. Thus, many of the villages' coordinates don't actually display here. Furthermore, this is currently the longest page in the English Knowledge (XXG). The page will be more useful to those interested in this topic if it is divided into separate articles (presumably one for each township in the district). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The "dividing the information into separate articles" has already been done. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Note I just implemented the split, so now this article is divided up over six pages (with the exact same content). I also replace the {{coord}} templates with a custom template that doesn't generate the globe icon and little map (so I don't hit the template limit and it loads faster). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Strong keep The ignorance of the nominator... The idea is that they are gradually linked and te more notable villages have articles. This greatly helps the comprehensiveness of wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment So let me get this right. This is an unlinked list of lists of villages that are mostly not notable enough to have articles, but the lists are overloaded with coordinates. "Hinthada District", without saying what country it is in, has one line of information that says it is a district of the "Ayeyarwady Division" which redirects to "Ayeyarwady Region". Talk about ignorance. I am just confused! Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And your problem with lists like List of United Kingdom locations with names and coordinates is??♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing other lists here. The article "Hinthada District" has yet to grow beyond less than basic information, and yet this extensive list of villages was developed - unlinked to or from that article. The District article gives links to the Township articles, which have individual lists which are linked. That would be the normal progression in looking for this information. Now that it has been split, Delete the redundant Distict list of lists and Keep the Township lists. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep a logical way to handle this, as is done in nearly every other county; where a bunch of smaller geographic units roll up into larger ones, it is often preferable to break them down; of course, anyone could overcome the objections by simple copying and pasting all the material in all the sublists to make an unmanageable but apparently unobjectionable mondo-table. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep per the keep arguments above. CSB. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep, clearly, although what remains is a list-of-lists, not a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought there already was a consensus. Anyway, the page has been significantly altered since this AfD began, with substantially all of the content being divided among six other pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Adam Taubitz

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

Self-promotional article without evidence of notability. No sources to support the claims of prizes won, and no indication how significant those prizes are. Everything in the article is consistent with his being a perfectly ordinary, non-notable, musician. (PROD was contested without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Plenty of mention of him as a violinist in google books actually. Yes its an autobio but he actually meets notability requirements. Mentioned here in the NYT, "From 1997 he was Principal 2nd Violinist in the Berlin Philharmonic under Claudio Abbado." Berlin Philharmonic and Claudio Abbado are very notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give specific references to sources which give substantial coverage to him? I can find nothing that gives more than minor mentions, apart from such as the book "Adam Taubitz" published by VDM Publishing House Ltd, which says "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" (Several more of the 21 books which appear in Google books also take content from Knowledge (XXG).) To simply say "Plenty of mention of him", without citing actual sources, is not very helpful. As for "Mentioned here in the NYT", here is the single sentence which mentions him: "Glimpses of Bach emerged through a funky musical collage that meshed hip-hop turntable scratching on a laptop; various jazz idioms; energetic fiddling by Adam Taubic that earned cheers from the audience; Middle Eastern and Indian influences; and an irreverent duo between Ms. Dinnerstein and the ensemble." Scarcely substantial coverage, and nowhere near enough to establish notability by Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. Finally, as for "Berlin Philharmonic and Claudio Abbado are very notable", yes, but notability is not inherited. We need evidence that Taubitz is notable, not that he has connections with people and things which are notable.|JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that playing under the Berlin Philharmonic and Claudio Abbadio is evidence that he is notable. Has an extensive biographical entry in Klassizistische Moderne, a book which covers notable contemporary classical musicians, and also has an entry in the book Celebrating 25 years of design practice in Canada by Wei Yew, mentioned as a violinist in publications such as The Jazz Discography, Swiss Music Guide, Musikhandel. An empty NYT bio here. Hong Kong Government mentions the Berlin Philharmonic jazz with other greats. We have thousands of other articles on similar level musicians in which extensive coverage about them is not massive but is mentioned in enough reliable sources to meet requirements. They obviously think he is notable too on German, French and Polish wikipedia. Add the fact he has worked with the Berlin Philharmonic and actually founded the jazz group of it, he is signed to EMI, a top record label, and has composed numerous tracks for films, he meets notability requirements, however much a douchebag the guy is to start his own article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep A holder of a regular chair in the Berlin Philharmonic--let alone principal of a section-- or similar orchestra is notable. It;'s th highest level of the profession. We've held so for other orchestras like the NY Philharmonic without serious dispute. the only step beyond that, is a famous soloist, and notability is much less than famous. Some reviews of he recordings would help, of course. Being in such an orchestra requires an evaluation by one's colleagues under the highest possible standards. I am not prepared to over-ride Karajan and Abbado in whom they think is a notable violinist , and I'm e that anyone at Knowledge (XXG) would be willing to make such a judgment on their own authority. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) .
- Haha, like Karajan and abbado give a hoot about whether he's a "notable" violinist. I think they just care about whether he's a good violinist. Not everything that's quality is notable. Is it? 74.64.103.240 (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete, only third party refs are mentions (NYT doesn't even spell his name correctly). "Principal 2nd Violinist" isn't that notable a position. Persistently recreated autobio. Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

certainly it's a notable position. To repeat the basics, violinists are divided into 1st and 2nd violins; it does not imply inferiority. Anyone who holds any of the one or two dozen positions in each of those sections in that or a similar orchestra is notable; the Principal is head of the section & thus extremely notable. I'm not sure about exact numbers, but it would be one of the 100 or so most distinguished positions in the world, and is equivalent to head of department at the most important of universities. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I can't find a reliable source that actually verfies he held this position, nor is their any mention of it in Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music). Since he appears to fail WP:GNG, I think we're done. Hairhorn (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

keep everything is consistent with a (self promotional) notable violinist. equivalent to Glenn Dicterow, or Marc Ginsberg. is there an anti-europe bias? here's the proof. Slowking4: 7@1|x 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep more or less per DGG. Article may call for sourcing improvements, but not deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The article needs work, and the subject may need to have the WP:COI policy explained to him (again), but I think there is enough indication of notability. I am looking more at his solo and jazz work here; I don't think being an orchestral principal, even in the Berlin Phil, necessarily indicates notability — cf. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jordan Anderson (musician). --Deskford (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. Obviously, there's work to be done, but the subject seems to meet our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm picturing Karajan and Abbado heading up a committee, sitting at the head of a long table deciding whether various musicians are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wait, what's that you say, you can't picture it? Right, that's because those guys decide who's worthy of inclusion in an orchestra. 74.64.103.240 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions do not adequately address the numerous policy-based problems identified by the strong majority of "delete" opinions. This does not preclude addressing the topic in a non-OR manner, such as in the article about Megasthenes. Sandstein 13:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Races as described by Megasthenes

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

Article is barely sourced, has the appearance of being substantially original research and is presented in a manner that makes it impossible to determine the subject matter (despite its title). I may be wrong about this but I cannot make head nor tail of the thing, despite dealing with Megasthenes issues across various India caste articles etc. Sitush (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

~~keep~~ comment—i don't blame you for not being able to make head nor tail of it. it had my head spinning for a while. i've never seen a wp article written like this, but i actually think it's not a bad system now, although it badly needs explaining in the article and possibly doesn't need to be a table. ~~it's certainly not original research, though.~~ the article creator took a few sentences out of this fragment of megasthenes's indika, and wikified all the races mentioned, using the third column of the table to preserve some continuity in the sentences. it's a peculiar way to do things, but i don't think a bad one. it seems to me to be not that different from importing eb-1911 material. the translation of megasthenes is pd, so why not import and wikify? the question of the individual notability of the ancient races is settled by the number of blue links to be found.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
~~Either rewrite and reformat completely or just delete.~~ To make my opinion clearer to the closing admin, my first choice is to delete, unless the article is going to be completely rewritten and reformatted. The information on this page is not well suited for a table and appears to be just quotes or paraphrases from this ancient work without sufficient modern context to make it useful. (Obviously an article such as this will include an ancient perspective, but this article talks about various Indian peoples, without giving clear indication of where they lived in terms of modern geographic names nor what these ethnic groups would be called in their native languages.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

i'm guessing that at this point, such information is lost. i think that the name of the article makes it clear that this is entirely out of megasthenes, and isn't about actually verifiable ancient races, but about ancient races verifiably mentioned by him. on the other hand, i completely agree that it's not well suited for a table.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

One problem with Megasthenes' work is that little of it survives and that which does has to be pieced together from quotes made by later writers (Ptolemy, for example, IIRC). A second problem is that there is substantial ambiguity/guesswork involved in interpreting it, eg: some people believe his "Narae" are the Nairs but this is not certain. These points would have to be made and sourced to the academic debates etc. I am not sure whether this is done adequately or not because of the confusing state of the thing, but my gut feeling is that it is not. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It was Pliny the Elder, not Ptolemy. D'oh. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

ah, i see the problem then, it's in the wikilinks. the authors of this article do OR every time they link one of Megasthenes's races to an article about a name that sounds similar now, but may or may not be a people megasthenes was talking about. is this essentially what you mean? i'm striking my keep for now, have to think more.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it isn't my entire rationale but it is a part of it. The problem is, this part is based on a limited knowledge gleaned while reading up on more specific items. In my delvings through caste articles I have come across various claims to have been mentioned by Megasthenes which, upon checking, proved not to be necessarily so (or even plain wrong). This applies as much as placenames as people/communities. Being mentioned by Megasthenes appears to be a part of what some people have called the "caste glorification" tendency. I would need to do some very serious digging if it is required that I produce a bundle of evidence for this. There are a lot of "it is thought"s, "it has been suggested"s etc around all of this underlying material (when properly fact-checked) and as such this particular article would need a lot of work. While needing a lot of work is not a reason to delete, the connections are tenuous, the layout is poor, the expertise appears to be non-existent, the sources are not there, etc. It may be an encyclopedic subject but it is unencyclopedic in execution & I suspect needs a great deal of expertise. I'll see what I can dig up but I am no expert on ancient Greeks or the academic debate regarding them. My main point was simply that the thing makes no sense, but apparently it does make sense to you, so that is my fault. User:LRBurdak is the creator and might be best advised to provide the "references to make it more authentic" which they refer to in their comment below. I would be happy to see it improved to the point where it adds to the project in a compliant manner. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've just taken a look at the second line of the table - "the Chisiotosagi (Type of Sakas), and the Brachmauae", and also at the article linked there (Sakas). Last things first, Sakas is very poor & you will see that I have tagged it for numerous things as well as deleting one or two bits that are most definitely WP:PRIMARY or unreliably sourced. It does mention Megasthenes but I would be wary of attaching too much weight to that, given the general state of the article. As for the table in the article which we are considering here, the term "Chisiotosagi" is not even mentioned in Sakas, and in the last column of the table I have had to add an {{OR}} tag because there appears to be some speculation going on which is not attributed to any source. I can pretty much guarantee that the same sort of issues will arise in the other lines of the table. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, i understand now. the project seems hopeless indeed.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - This article contains very useful information about the ancient races. So it should be kept. It may be provided with references to make it more authentic. burdak (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
LRBurdak is the creator of the article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge to list of historical races or Megasthenes. Dzlife (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
delete—per nom and above discussion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. The Megasthenes-by-way-of-Pliny text itself is more within the purview of Wikisource (WP:NOTREPOSITORY), and the name equivalencies proposed are largely unsourced, making it impossible to tell whose suggestions they represent. Basically, this is just not an encyclopedia article—I can envision an article on ancient peoples of India that might (judiciously) draw on this material; but a primary source, even presented as a table and annotated, has no place here. Deor (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I have no immediate opinion if this article can be saved or is beyond hope, but if it is kept, it should be moved to a title like Indian ethnic groups described by Megasthenes. Many of the groups described are tribes or clans, and it does not make sense to call these "races". --Lambiam 10:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
delete This sort of article should be based on secondary sources. These sources can determine which tribes are pure fantasy and which are based on historic tribes. After removing all the original research, there is nothing usable left, so the article needs to be rewritten from scratch. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete seems like a WP:COATRACK for some racial POV pushing, but I can't quite be sure which POV... Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep the Article: I believe the article should be kept, as it does contains significant information about the ancient history. After viewing the kind of information the article has, I believe that one should focus on the room for further improvements to the article, rather than considering the deletion. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, and We cannot look forward to delete such valuable information, while it could still be there if someone can come-up with a couple more references. -- Abstruce 14:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is information that appears to be significant, but it's not sourced to any reliable source. It might be significant, or it might be just something made up by someone, with no relationship to real facts. With no secondary sources, it's impossible to know. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I will strongly suggest to look for making improvements to the article, after going through the information, the article is sharing, rather than deleting it. --Abstruce 14:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the current article has no salvageable information. It's all 100% original research. It wouldn't be as much "making improvements" as "writing a new different article from scratch". In those cases, the usual practice is to nuke the whole article. If the topic shows some promise of becoming one day a full sourced article of its own, then a short stub is created, and possibly some reliable sources are listed at its end. If the topic is already covered somewhere else, and the title could be vaguely useful for someone searching for information in the topic, a redirect is created.

If the article had even a small amount of good sourced information, it might be merged to Megasthenes and the information moved there (this is called "merge and redirect"), and then the article wouldn't be deleted because of copyright reasons (the history of the article has to show the author of the information, and it can't do that if the article is deleted). But this is not the case. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And another point that needs to be made. If you know of any secondary RS, history books, etc, that happen to talk about how Megasthenes descriptions corresponded to actual historic tribes, then this would be the moment to say so, and cite them, or at least explain some information about them, so other editors can try to locate them. That would help a lot towards saving this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was Result is Delete. GB fan 23:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Bass

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

Notable only for winning the Navy Cross in Afghanistan. Worthy, certainly, but recipients of second-level gallantry decorations are not usually considered notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article without further reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS and is therefore likely non-notable under WP:GNG. What information there is can be included at Battle of Qala-i-Jangi. Anotherclown (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Agree also lacks any kind or references or citations.Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Merging can be discussed at the talk page. NOTE: article was moved during the AfD to Cricket Bat industry of India. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Indian cricket bat

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

Traditional Indian cricket bat is not a topic unique from the Cricket bat. Merger was proposed two weeks ago - the only comment on the proposal was the creator's, who said this was some class project, and that the article would be further expanded. No evidence of expansion exists. Hence, I went ahead with the merger, and now am proposing the deletion of this article, all of whose relevant contents, with citations, are now at the Cricket bat article. Ratibgreat (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete An interesting essay on the Indian cricket bat industry, but it fails to convince me that there is a traditional Indian cricket bat; thereby failing to achieve notability as a subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I don't claim to be an expert on WP:ATTRIBUTION, but I'm not sure that deletion is appropriate here, because it appears that material from this article has been re-used in cricket bat and thus the edit history of this article needs to be preserved. Assuming that others conclude the present article is no longer needed, redirect may be a better way to go.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. If preservation is the objective, redirect? Ratibgreat (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment The title doesn't sound right, but the variant is a legitimate one. Also, since the content has already been merged (and that's a reasonable decision), the article shouldn't be deleted (and of course the merged-to and merged-from tags ought to be slapped on the talk pages). —SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment,The article was created as part of my course study http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Research_Methodology_Year_3_Group_B#Due_July_24. The article not only looks at the Indian cricket industry from the point of view of cricket,but the economy it generates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustubh85 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Having had a deeper look at the article I'm convinced that this should be kept and renamed to Cricket Bat industry of India. The article talks about the bat as well as the industry and the coverage of the industry can be significantly expanded based on reliable sources. This Daily Mail article just touches on how EU regulations impact usage of Kashmir willow in bats etc. The Googles also tells me that the issue was discussed in the Australian Parliament in 1965. A Business India article from 2002 describes the revenue/turnover pattern of the cricket bat industry in Kashmir but I can't preview it to get the actual figures; some sources: this from The Independent, this from the Daily News and Analysis, this from the Business Standard talks about the industry in general, this from the New Zealand Herald talks about the impact of the World Cup on the bat manufacturing community, this from the Dawn (newspaper) talks about the impact of the Kashmir conflict on the industry. It's clearly a notable topic, the title needs a bit of tweaking, that's all. —SpacemanSpiff 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it This really doesn't read to me as an article about the cricket bat industry of India, and never mind my qualms about writing such an article. It's really written as the kind of "Which Cricket Bat for You?" article that might appear in Indian Cricket Today (should such a journal exist). Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't share your read on this. I don't see the article providing the reader a choice, rather it appears to me to discuss the different market segments. The problems section addresses only a certain aspect of the industry which can easily be expanded using many of the available sources. Gbooks also has some good previews for the history of the industry. I'd fix this myself, but it's a project from the India Education Program run by the foundation and I'd rather let the student do it as he's being graded on this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Thanks a lot Sir..I would really work on the notes that you have provided. I would really like to have your input in it too.Kaustubh85 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

Good finds! This is a significant industry. 5000 people in this one town make three million cricket bats a year. The article isn't just about the bats, but the industry that makes them, the history of it, and how this affects the people involved. Dream Focus 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - if the sources can be added and the article improved then I'll endorse a keep. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - per reliable sources , , that qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep The content has been used by the nominator in another article and so we must keep this article to satisfy our licensing. See WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:MAD doesn't need to be satisfied with a keep! Merge and redirect will still preserve the history records. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Pointless article that adds no value. Specifics of Indian bat production should be written into cricket bat. ----Jack | 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep, primarily per SpacemanSpiff who shows just enough significant coverage that I think the article is viable as a stand-alone and doesn't need to be merged into cricket bat. Jenks24 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete or merge/redirect'. As BlackJack says, specifics of Indian bat production should be written into cricket bat. Neutrality 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Reliable sources have been found about the industry itself, not just the cricket bats. Dream Focus 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep- This artical is long enough, I agree with User:Dream Focus, the industry exists, keep it on wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kaplas

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

No notability, no sources, no references, and unencyclopedic Heywoodg 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Unsourced article about a surname. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No reliable sources, fails WP:N. -- Luke (Talk) 00:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. While the arguments for retention have a certain appeal, the deletes are more strongly grounded in policy. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 03:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Pitlick

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

Disputed prod. This player fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. The deprodder mentioned that since the AHL season is about to start it should be left. However I would note that is WP:CRYSTALBALLing. Even if he played a full season of AHL games he would still not meet the requirements of NHOCKEY which is why they are set up the way they are, so that players that are included play more than a single season in a pro league below the NHL to qualify. DJSasso (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Seems to have adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG, e.g., , , , , . Rlendog (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep (I'm the one who contested the PROD). I contested it because my Internet search and comparison with his peers suggests WP:5P is best served by a less aggressive enforcement of WP:NHOCKEY on the brink of the American Hockey League's new season. As we all know, the fifth of the five pillars is "Knowledge (XXG) does not have firm rules"; given the adequate coverage that already exists, I don't think there should be any urgency to enforcing the letter of the WP:NHOCKEY guideline. 67.101.6.37 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The one firm standard we have though is notability. A subject must be notable, this is especially true of a biography of a living person. This one is not yet, he fails to meet to the general notability guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I appreciate especially Rlendog's links, but they don't add up to substantial, to me. I guess I just have a higher bar for substantial coverage, but I feel as though every town of 10,000 will be able to produce a dozen high school athletes with this level of coverage every year. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there are many towns of 100,000 that have a high school athlete with a full length profile in a publication that has anything like the prestige of The Hockey News. Or multiple articles in a publication like the Edmonton Journal, for that matter. Rlendog (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The GNG concerns from Djsasso and Hobbes Goodyear needs some clarification. In addition to coverage identified by Rlendog, I found a variety of other possible citations, including the following: , , , , , , Notability also gets a very minor bump from his relationship to Lance Pitlick. 72.244.200.160 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

His relationship to Lance Pitlick doesn't help him. Notability isn't inherited. Whether or not Tyler Pitlick is notable is based purely on how notable he is, not who he is related to. As for the articles, the only one that explicitly talks about the subject and would help him meet WP:N is the from the Mankato Free Press. That Mankato Free Press article is already in Rlendog's list, so it isn't an additional source. The others are either on-line blogs or only mention him in passing. Patken4 (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The last ref at least is another chit in the notability column, but really I think Patken4 has it right. For me, the article and the references paint a picture of someone who could well become a notable hockey figure, but is not one yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up to me too. Passing mentions of someone who may later be notable. But passing mentions don't equal notability yet. They need to be significant and in depth. And as we all know blogs don't count for notability which is what some of those links are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete This is a tough one. There is one significant, independent, in-depth source on him (the first one provided by Rlendog), but everything else is routine (including the last one by Rlendog which is a routine, basic overview of a teams picks at the draft), minor local coverage (i.e. the Manakato press) or from blogs. What's clinched this decision for me is the fact that the Edmonton Journal failed to do any major write up about him in their annual extensive pre-season coverage of the oilers. I have no doubt that he will eventually merit an article, but now is not the time. Additionally, as his present article is just the most very basic of articles nothing will be lost in its deletion that cannot be easily salvaged later (with or without an undeletion). Ravendrop 18:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty I have with treating the draft article as "routine" is that not all draftee get the level of coverage that Pitlick gets in that article. Even the article itself demonstrates the dichotomy: Pitlick gets several paragraphs, while the other draftees included just get one line stating their name, position, draft position and current team. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but he is also the highest draft pick, and (probably) the most likely to reach the NHL or make an impact anytime soon, thus the reporter takes a little more time to dig up a few more lines about him. While it could be argued that it may not meet ROUTINE per se, its definitely not at the in-depth level of the first article you linked. Ravendrop 18:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. When the coverage in sources is borderline for GNG purposes, we should give due weight to the subject-specific guideline, which in this case would require deletion. That is an entirely permissible approach: the GNG only gives rise to a presumption of notability. In borderline cases, that presumption can be refuted. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Phua

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

De-prodded w/ vague claim regarding media coverage, but I can find none. The subject might very well have some success as an actor, but that means little if the only coverage out there for a "Joe Phua" is on a BBC journalist of the same name. Mbinebri 02:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete Lack of coverage in English does not pass WP:GNG. Assuming it is verifiable, the filmography does not meant WP:ENT and does not suggest there would be enough in Chinese coverage to meet GNG either. Novaseminary (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment is the Chinese name given in the article correct? Even for a non-notable bit actor, I'd expect to find some webhits in forums and hits in Chinese Knowledge (XXG) articles, but that literally gets nothing at all besides copies of his own English Knowledge (XXG) article and mis-hits: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The Chinese Knowledge (XXG) article for A Chinese Tall Story doesn't mention anyone with a remotely similar name. cab (call) 09:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep He's in several notable films. He clearly meets WP:ENT. Rednevog (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment ENT requires significant roles. The article doesn't even claim this, let alone provide sources that confirm this. Novaseminary (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:GNG. Projects range from unknown junk to semi-known junk. Roles range from bit parts with a few lines to bit parts with no lines. What coverage exists is almost too puny to count as WP:ROUTINE. If there is a secret stash of WP:RS sources that suggest, against all odds, that subject is notable, please advise. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Bu I think that on the basis on this discussion a merger would not be opposed by many. Sandstein 12:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious duality

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

As far as I can tell not notable. The fact that this duality does not have a proper name 10 year after the first publication, and that that publication has only gathered 43 citations should be an indication that its not.T R 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) T R 10:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete - leaving aside whether this is notable, there are no citations in the article (and haven't been for nearly 2 years). The article as it now is fails to give the general reader any kind of idea what the concept in question is, or even what the words used to describe it (compactification? blowing-up k points?). If it's to be kept it needs a lot of explanation. And citations, of course. Let's delete it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

None of those are actual reasons for deletion. The ref issue is easy enough to resolve, if the subject is deemed notable enough. (Which I think it isn't)T R 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, its notability looks very doubtful, and your arguments have some weight. If the article is to remain then it needs a lot of work - cleanup, expansion, wikifying, etc.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

keep. The original paper introducing this topic is by one of the leading string theorists, and is well known to experts: it has picked up about 50 references from other papers, so is notable enough for wikipedia. The other reasons mentioned above may be reasons for improving the article but are not reasons for deleting it. r.e.b. (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that any paper with 50+ citations is notable, in the sense that it should have its own article on wikipedia? That seems a bit over the top doesn't it?T R 05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. In fairness, I definitely agree that this duality is very mysterious; after all, it appears to elude attempts at explaining it in a Knowledge (XXG) article for years. It's so mysterious that, I reckon, the secret society of string theory physicists would have to kill us all if they told us about it; it's so mysterious that it's science's best kept secret. Mysteriously, I can find little about this topic that I can understand, and I feel a bit of a duality as a result. The topic seems to be notable only within discourse between advanced-level string theorists themselves -- that is, there is no general readership concept that the article can cover, because it looks like the concept itself is so reliant on advanced string theory. In summary, it's notable only in-universe within the string theory community but not encyclopaedically for Knowledge (XXG) and, mysteriously, I must therefore (dualistically) vote for deletion. --Tristessa (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep. There are loads of high-quality citations in the literature. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is actually true, Slawomir. A Google Scholar search for the term "mysterious duality" shows the arXiv e-print of the authors' paper got 45 citations, many of which were in decent journals; but (all?) of those citing articles don't seem to use the term themselves, rather they are referring to the construction of the duality. The 2002 peer-reviewed publication of the same paper got only 2 citations, both of which were in the same journal. Beyond the first few hits it appears that the rest of the uses of the term are incidental, i.e. they are using "mysterious" as an adjective on "duality", not the term "mysterious duality", and have nothing to do with this construction at all. --Tristessa (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The peer reviewed paper was published in 2001, not 2002. Your google scholar search only shows papers citing it with the wrong publication date. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Slawomir: the one with all the citations is the (non peer-reviewed) arXiv pre-print; so in which case, where's the correct journal published version in the hits? If it was simply that the cited publication date was wrong, you'd see the appearance of two peer-reviewed publications of the paper in the same journal, and most of the citations would be against the correct one. --Tristessa (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the record on inspire, which automatically links the arxiv and published one. This returns 36 citations.T R 16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tristessa: Google scholar is confused. You can easily check for yourself that the references listed here mostly refer to the peer reviewed paper that appeared in Advances in Theoretical Mathematics and Physics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment (perhaps redirect) Given that this is cited by 43 or 45 other papers it may not qualify as a notable topic. The intro of the source article at least gives an explanation of what the authors are attempting to achieve , in the first three paragraphs. However, I quickly get lost in the jargon of the original paper and the Knowledge (XXG) article. Unfortunately I am not able to determine notability. Are there any other criteria to look at (for notability) besides citation numbers?. The paper appears to be about duality symmetries in string theory. This appears to be covered already in String duality, which may make this article irrelevant. In that case I say redirect if my assessment is accuracte. Or delete if "mysterious duality" is a useless term. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How so? It has many citations in reliable sources independently of the original paper which, I might add, itself was reliably published, and is authored by at least one leading expert on string theory (Cumrun Vafa). By the letter of WP:GNG, this seems to be more than enough to warrant inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So all papers by Vafa are automatically notable? More to the point can you give references that actually refer to this as "Mysterious duality"?T R 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on four of these many citations at random. One didn't mention the concept by name except in the reference. One was a passing reference. One had a sentence and a half of coverage. One shared a co-author. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my own experience seems to be similar. For me the argument for keep is growing substantially weaker. More expert input, from User:r.e.b. or User:Lumidek would be helpful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've notified r.e.b. for further comment. Lubos seems to be MIA. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment As far as there is any notability in this topic, it appears to be in the observation that there is a link between the geometry of del Pezzo surfaces and M-theory compactified on a torus. (This is what most articles citing the article "a mysterious duality" cite it for.) This probably warrants a mention on the del Pezzo surface page. The term "mysterious duality" however seems to be a neologism. (I've yet to find any evidence for its usage as a term for this duality.) I would also argue that the duality as such does not meet the WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of the duality in secondary literature. (Although I'm open to be proven wrong on the last point by somebody providing an explicit example.) This article should therefore probably not be redirected, but simply deleted.T R 14:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If all else fails userfy. I'm not convinced deletion is the correct option for the encyclopedia, but I suppose we have to accept that in some cases interesting ideas in theoretical physics do get "put on the backburner". The General Notability criteria are not that useful in determining when it makes sense to treat such concepts as fireworks with faulty fuses. The way science works is that ideas can morph, and you need an expert to point out where the terminology changes or concepts get adjusted. Survey articles are for that, in part. Then merge options exist, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to the article section M-theory#Mysterious duality. Notability seems dubious for a stand-alone article, in particular given the neologistic quality of the title, but sufficient for inclusion there. (Del Pezzo surface is another potential target, but M-theory seems more appropriate.) --Lambiam 09:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Physics Illustrator

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

Orphan; half the article was copyvio (now deleted); not notable subject. tlesher (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete: I have found no decent sources to indicate notability for this software. Mattg82 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Estelle Guisard

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

This person appears to fail all tennis notability guidelines. No main draws on the tour and no wins at the higher level ITF tournaments. The external link sources provide no evidence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Has won a $25,000 Women's ITF tournament ref, which passes WP:NTENNIS point 5. Ravendrop 01:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per new guidelines. Ravendrop 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's old news. Tennis guidelines are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS. Google searches all look WP:ROUTINE, although mostly non-English. Translated a few: très routine. Nothing else unearthed from looking at her website. Fails WP:GNG --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Remi Tezuka

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Has won a couple of $25,000 ITF tournaments in doubles, meeting WP:NTENNIS #5. Ravendrop 01:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per new guidelines Ravendrop 05:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's old news. Tennis guidelines are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of non-WP:ROUTINE sources and WP:NTENNIS for lack of achievement. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Federica Quercia

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Has won at least one $25,000 ITF women's tournament in doubles ref, which passes WP:NTENNIS. Ravendrop 01:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete per new guidelines. Ravendrop 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That's old news. Tennis guidelines are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of non-WP:ROUTINE sources (yes, I translated a handful) and WP:NTENNIS for lack of achievement. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Annalisa Bona

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete No ITF $25,000 wins. The $10,000 level doesn't quite cut it. Ravendrop 01:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
nor does $25,000. Tournaments have raised their totals and the womens now coincides with the mens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't have the magic $50,000 win per guidelines, so delete. Bgwhite (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG--links in article and from web search are all WP:ROUTINE. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about the sufficiency of the sourcing or whether WP:PRODUCT would prohibit the existence of this article. Mkativerata (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Logitech G25

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:44, 29 September 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) 23:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - a WP:BEFORE search for reliable sources will turn up plenty of usable coverage. This (and the G27) are extremely high profile wheels for the PlayStation 2/3 platforms and have strong and direct ties to Gran Turismo 4 and Gran Turismo 5. --Teancum (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources does not necessarily indicate sufficient notability for an article. See also WP:PRODUCT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I found three strong reviews: Maximum PC, Ars Technica, About.com. The Ars Technica is really good, the Maximum PC is only a half-page box review, but the About.com one is written by a NASCAR author and the head of About.com's NASCAR area. I also found Stuff.co.nz and AtomicGamer.com, but I can't verify their reliability. I was going to say delete until I found the About.com review. I think that with the three posted we can say the product is notable. I would also bet there are multiple reviews in printed enthusiast computer magazines as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC) *EDIT* I think it's also worth noting that the G25 Wheel has been used in dozens of scientific studies to test racing simulation environments. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that enough to be notable? I don't reckon it is. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the question I also found Stuff.co.nz , but I can't verify their reliability. Stuff.co.nz is my local paper is absolutely reliable for national news and coverage (probably the best national politics in the country). The technology coverage is medium poor to very poor (the print papers in the stable use stores purchased on the international market I believe). This particular article is credited to Gameplanet.co.nz which doesn't seem like a WP:RS to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain how it fails the GNG? The only argument to be made at this point would be regarding the coverage in the sources or that the number of sources in insufficient despite the presumption of notability. Strictly speaking, it does not fail the GNG because it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

GNG allows virtually any topic to have an article since it is merely needs to have something written about the topic. That is why I think all of the individual notability guidelines were developed. WP is not a repository of everything so we need to determine what product article we ant to keep. Since products often have reviews WP could potentially have 100s of 1000s of product articles. So, as we do with bio articles , book articles etc we set some sort of limit to what we do include in WP. WP:PRODUCT gives a little bit of an idea as to what we should do with product articles but I want to see the notability bar set quite high so we get truly notable products such as the iPad and the Ford Cortina for example.

Actually the WP:GNG doesn't allow virtually any topic to have an article since it is merely needs to have something written about the topic. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which can be quite a high bar. The problem is that situations like this we disagree about what counts as significant coverage which is where we have WP:PRODUCT. WP:PRODUCT says If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. I'm seriously thinking of changing my vote into Logitech Driving Force GT and Logitech G27 at something like Logitech electronic steering wheels. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Merge relevant info into Logitech 'G' series article (I volunteer) - I read one policy, WP:PRODUCT, do I need to read any others? It seems crystal-clear to me from that. As much as I love mine, and I've enjoyed my G25 quite a lot, WP is not the place for this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is at least one policy you should read before participating in deletion discussions: WP:N. Particularly the WP:GNG part. The references from About.com and Ars Technica are significant coverage of the subject and are multiple in that there are two. You could make other arguments, such as two is not enough in this case, or that the subject is not notable for some other reason. But I do not see how WP:PRODUCT defines this product as non-notable. Please explain it if you are citing it. I honestly can not tell what part of WP:PRODUCT you are referring to here as I've read the policy many times. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply you directed my attention to two product reviews and described them as "significant coverage". They are not. They are ordinary reviews about a niche gaming accessory, in this specific case gaming wheel that happened to be Logitech's product line for a short time before they quickly rolled out the G27. WP:GNG is not intended to give notability to products simply because reviews exist. And so given that I reject notability WP:PRODUCT seems to be quite obvious: don't necessarily make a article for every vacuum cleaner. As for being used in "scientific studies" that is another invalid attempt to generate notability for this product. If my Thrustmaster HOTAS is used as an off-the-shelf component for Predators, put that in the Predator article. Next. LoveUxoxo (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting what significant coverage means. Curious though, what exactly would you consider significant coverage enough to meet WP:N? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply this article does quite nicely. Best of luck finding something like that for the G25, which, off the top of my head I'd guess sold around a max of 10,000 units and so didn't ever generate any coverage like that. As for another editor's comment that the G25 has "strong and direct" ties to Gran Turismo 5, in non-hyperbolese it's a "supported peripheral". It isn't mentioned as such, by name, on the GT5 box, since that games supports so many other peripheral devices. In fact when you go into "Settings" > "Steering Wheels" and look at all the presets Sony provided for various models of steering wheels (mostly Logitech's), they don't have one for the G25 (that is my "gamer" argument for a reality check). Any basic information about the G25 should be in the ~~Logitech~~ Logitech 'G' series article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you would prefer the source analyze the subject in a more historical or big perspective than a simple analysis of the device's merit? I can definitely understand that, and it's a good argument. It's true we don't know anything about the device's development, or its historical impact. But we do know the G27 was made as an improvement. Whether or not this is enough to pass the GNG I suppose falls to consensus to decide. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think something needs to be found for this product "stand out" in multiple sources as (especially) selling well, innovative, copied, influential, a rip-off, whatever. When it isn't revolutionary, but evolutionary, one of a series of incrementally better models, I think it should be simply listed in the company page or a page, say, on Logitech's 'G' series. OMG! Don't click on that link. That whole page leads to a bunch of articles on each individual model of Logitech's gaming mice. I'd rather have the G25 article (its certainly more actual hardware) than any of those mice ones. Yes, all those should be deleted as well. The problem is occurring on the G series page; instead of being a list of links, that's the page to have (very) brief descriptions of the models:

Logitech G19, includes color 320x240 LCD display, Can change color and has a USB 2.0 port

Something like that but a bit more detailed (and with a reference), and where "Logitech G19" isn't a bluelink that leads to an article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you exclude reviews, then probably 50% of the video game articles we have should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly, and possibly appropriately. Modern Warfare 2 obviously is notable (best-selling, critical praise), though that article could use a trim with a chainsaw. But Colin McRae: Dirt? I don't think so (and I've owned both). The info in the Colin McRae: Dirt article should be condensed and put in the article about the Colin McRae series of games (if you got a franchise series that is released over a decade on multiple platforms I think notability is established). The fact that Colin McRae died right after release and it was on somebody's list of top-52 games that year doesn't cut it. Otherwise I think it violates the non-existent policy of, after I click on the link, WP:YOUJUSTWASTED5SECONDSOFMYLIFE. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Please can we develop a notability guideline for products to make these AfDs easier. As an encyclopaedia WP does not need articles on random consumer products that get a bit of a mention and are of a greater interest to WP editors than that of our readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. v/r - T P 17:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Irina Reyn

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

This author appears to have written only one book and edited another. Her winning of the Goldberg Prize for Jewish Fiction by emerging writers is not sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR, nor are the book reviews she has written. Her teaching position would not seem to meet WP:PROF, either. The lack of substantial coverage of her fails WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Irina Reyn overwhelmingly meets WP:AUTHOR #3 (4c). Her book What Happened to Anna K ~~"has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"~~ "has won significant critical attention"—"'What Happened to Anna K' by Irina Reyn: Channeling Leo Tolstoy, novelist finds tragic romance" from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "'Anna K.,' From Russia To Queens — With Love" from NPR, "'What Happened to Anna K.'" from the San Francisco Chronicle, "Anna's modern makeover: From Russia, with love and all its complications, comes Anna Karenina, who settles in New York in Irina Reyn's updating of the Tolstoy classic" from Newsday, "What Happened to Anna K. by Irina Reyn" from the Houston Chronicle, "Anna Karenina is alive and well: Irina Reyn's brisk, audacious first novel transforms Tolstoy's Russians into soulless N.Y. immigrants." from the Los Angeles Times, "What happened to Anna K.: A modern take on a tragic romance" from The Christian Science Monitor, "Fooling with a classic - First novelist recasts 'Anna Karenina' with skill, resonance" from The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Familiar Russian story gets an update, change of place" from the Chicago Tribune, "Anna in America" from O: The Oprah Magazine, and "Pitt instructor vividly depicts immigrants in debut novel" from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, and Publishers Weekly have also reviewed the book. Reyn has also been interviewed about her book—"Just Asking . . . Irina Reyn: A debut novelist talks about taking a fresh look at Anna Karenina" from The Wall Street Journal and "PW talks with Irina Reyn: Tolstoy in Queens" from Publishers Weekly. All this is more than enough to enough notability. Goodvac (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Being tenth on Entertainment Weekly's 2008 best fiction list and winning an award for emerging writers (read: not yet notable wirters) doesn't qualify the novel as a "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work", at least for WP:N purposes, does it? That is also part of AUTHOR #3. I find it difficult to believe that an assistant professor who wrote one novel which did get several generally positive reviews, but did not win any major literary award, and who has had very little written about her herself in RSs meets WP:N. It wouldn't suprise me one bit if she writes more and gets wider acclaim or gets covered herself in RSs, but I don't see it yet. Novaseminary (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That you personally feel that an "assistant professor who wrote one novel which did get several generally positive reviews" is not notable is not relevant. The fact is that if Reyn meets WP:AUTHOR, she is notable.
If you disagree that #3 qualifies, fine, #4 qualifies indubitably: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." What Happened to Anna K has "won significant critical attention", as evidenced by the numerous reviews above. Goodvac (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Indubitably, this is all our "personal feelings", I hope based on our readings of policy and guidelines as applied to this author. I would say the case for 4 is even weaker. I do not think an author's book having received several reviews is the same as a body of work having "won significant critical attention". This just highlights how far she has to go, doesn't it? One would think "a" through "d" of 4 all represent about the same level of accomplishment, just in different ways. Are the reviews of her one book anywhere analogous to "a significant monument"? Novaseminary (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Critical attention" is equivalent to having received reviews (from critics) on one's work. The evidence for the "significant critical attention" is overwhelming. What would you consider "significant critical attention", if it isn't the 14 detailed reviews and 2 interviews above? Goodvac (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Many passing mentions of this persons book is not significant coverage of the person. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have just voted Delete fails WP:GNG. at 25 AfDs in about 23 minutes. How did you assess the notability of this author in two minutes? Please explain how the two interviews listed above do not constitute significant coverage and how the 14 in-depth reviews above are "passing mentions". The interviews alone already satisfy the GNG, but Reyn's passage of WP:AUTHOR (4c) further bolsters her notability. Goodvac (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Special shout-out to Goodvac for making the case in triplicate, but really, not even necessary if you do a web search and read the results. Coverage, in numbers and in substance. Makes me want to go out and read a book, for crying out loud, instead of spending my time sending justifiably-obscure Romanian footballers to WP perdition. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Death Grips

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. Other than possibly the NBC New York source, the other 2 sources are self-published, and I was unable to find more reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep as per criterion 6. Zach Hill has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. The article needs a lot of work though. Pwrong (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was merge to Sahara Elite League. Courcelles 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Southern Stars

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

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

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

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

Non-notable former cricket clubs, all of which lack widespread coverage from reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. These teams all played just nine matches each in 2008, none of which were notable. Fails WP:CLUB and ~~WP:CRIN~~ criteria, as well as elements of WP:V. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with the criteria used to define notability in the case of Southern Stars and several other Kenyan franchises and clubs who's wikipedia articles have recently been deleted. Basically unless they are featuring as guests in a full members in a competition held in a full member (which is hardly ever the case) there is no way a club or franchise based outside a full member of the ICC can make notabililty. See also my comments on the talk page of this deletion page. Kimemia Maina (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I can agree with Kimemia that this and other similar articles are being deleted on criteria which state that the subject is inherently non-notable. Recently many articles on Kenyan cricket have been deleted, no matter how important the subject is. Lots of bad faith and regional bias have taken place to make that happen. As I've been very busy recently, I haven't had time to contest these deletions. Kenyan cricket may not be of test cricket level, but in the end our national team has regularly competed in the Criket Word Cup. The game also receives noticeable amount of media coverage on Kenyan media. I'm particularly unhappy with the deletion of articles on Kenyan cricket clubs. If Sammarinese football clubs are considered notable enough to justify their inclusion in Knowledge (XXG), how on earth Kenyan cricket clubs which produce World Club players are not as notable? Julius Sahara (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. This does not fail (or pass) WP:CRIN, because there is no criterion there by which to judge clubs outside England and Australia, just a note that "it is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - addressed that Phil, WP:CRIN rationale removed from AfD. I think we should solely concentrate on the league and not the clubs that play in this case. The Sahara Elite League I have no problem with, yes while it was for a sole season the top league in Kenya, do the clubs really merit inclusion? Putting aside that they were around for just one season and played just nine matches, they also included national players - does this itself make the teams notable? I don't think so. Where the notability of a club/team is weak, then the top league they played in should be the sole mention (aside from on relevant articles linking back). As for the recent deletion of Kenyan club articles, those were without a doubt non-notable. Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club.... please. Afghanistan played at the 2010 T20 World Cup - doesn't mean Kabul Province cricket team is notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

as a direct response to that last comment yes, if Kabul Cricket Club is responsible for x number of players that featured for Afghanistan at a major world event then they do merit at least a stub level article saying who they where and where they play lest fork otherwise assume they fell from the sky. Kimemia Maina (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Nope, because significant coverage doesn't exist, just as significant coverage doesn't exist for the teams nominated here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding to recently deleted Kongonis article, the club has been subject to live coverage by Pan-African TV channel Supersport , and their games are regularly reported by major Kenyan and Ugandan newspapers such as Daily Nation ,, The Standard , , , New Vision , , and Daily Monitor , , . What else is needed to make its media coverage significant??? Julius Sahara (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I hereby propose that the deletion of Swamibapa Sports Club and constant re-deletion of Kenya Kongonis pages also be linked to the outcome of this discussion. Both were summarily deleted on the very shaky ground being used as justification for the deletion of the pages listed in this deletion discussion. Never mind that unlike even the fact that these teams are very much still active. Kimemia Maina (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Northern Nomads, Eastern Aces and Western Chiefs were not tagged for AfD. They are tagged now. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge – I'd propose merging each of the four articles listed at the top, along with National Elite League Twenty20, into the parent article Sahara Elite League. Swamibapa Sports Club and Kenya Kongonis are seperate to this discussion, and should be discussed elsewhere. Harrias 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The merge idea sounds good to me. The reasons I proposed including the Swamibapa and kongonis deletions in this discussion is because they were done on the same reasoning despite both being sunject to the same level of coverage as those teams already in this page.Kimemia Maina (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Merge is a good approach. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment I fully support a merge. Given a lack of coverage and notability for stand alone articles, redirecting them to the main Sahara Elite League article would be fine. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ketchup Vampires

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

I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this article, and I believe it fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There are some mentions here. It's a matter of if the topic has received significant coverage elsewhere. The fact that it's not listed in the IMDb means it's pretty obscure. Might need to look behind paywalls for this one. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Comment Cheesy animation. TV Guide shared a reasonable review and offered some some decent information... mostly that this is an English-language version of a German-Hungarian original, that the English version does not have voice credits, and it used Cassandra Peterson to narrate the English version. Appears to have been based upon (or snipped together from) the German children's television series Die Ketchup-Vampire. The film had a sequel: The Ketchup Vampires II. Now... if we can find and check German and Hungarian sources for the original's release..... Schmidt, 07:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Ketchup Vampires at IMDB. Schmidt, 02:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. While reliable sources may well exist, I can't find them and MQS, who is very good at sourcing obscure movies hasn't turned up enough to base an article on either. If someone can find sources to support an article on the film, or one on the original TV show that's great but until then we are better off without an unsourced, and unsourceable, article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. v/r - T P 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Chuen Yan Cheng

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

This man's sole claim to fame is the development of the men's birth control pill. The rest of the article, until I went through it, was full of unsourced puffery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Adjudin (the drug in question). Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep That;s a sufficient claim to fame. He has apparently won some awards for it, and been covered in a substantial way by reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep meets WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Clearly a notable person; the article needs a lot of work though! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 03:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Werner Cricket Ground

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

Non-notable cricket venue, fails WP:CRIN, also little outside coverage so fails WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - the article says "The ground has hosted matches between the Luxembourg national team and various other teams, including the Belgium national team and the MCC" and provides a citation from a reliable site (CricketArchive). To me, that international match against Belgium seems enough for the ground to be notable. JH (talk page) 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the suggestion that the article fails WP:GNG had led me to look in various editions of Wisden, where I've found several mentions of the ground. I shall be adding these to the article, in the hope of answering the objection. JH (talk page) 12:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - It does meet WP:CRIN, as the Luxembourg national cricket team is undoubtedly notable. And it does meet WP:GNG per the citations that Jhall1 has added (note also that, since the Luxemburger Wort now publishes an English version online, there are quite a few cricket-related news articles). Bastin 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Doesn't necessarily meet WP:CRIN as while the national team is notable, the matches it plays are not in cricketing terms. The added references will though probably save it :) AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Gave this one a looking-over, and I'm satisfied that with the added references and such, keeping this one will be cricket. And now I flee the Pun Police! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. v/r - T P 17:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Campus Outreach

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

Contested PROD. Promotional article. Fails WP:ORG. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The existing article is certainly promotional and nonencyclopedic in tone. However, I do suspect that this organization is a potentially notable multicampus ministry based on sources such as and and . Or as a possible alternative, maybe redirect and add some information at the article about Briarwood Presbyterian Church, the megachurch that founded this ministry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep and trim down or merge per Arxiloxos. While notable, some of the sections are promotional in tone and lacking in citations. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge with redirect into Briarwood Presbyterian Church, which is the organization behind this activity. --John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:NONPROFIT (just barely) with an international scope (US, South Africa, Thailand, Australia, etc.), and several sources, including those noted by Arxiloxos (it's hard to tell exactly how many sources, since the name is a common phrase). A merge to Briarwood Presbyterian Church is not appropriate, given the international and distributed nature of the organisation. The article needs a rewrite, however. -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Weak Keep It seems extremely borderline, but the two references , where this organization was being used as an example to represent a whole field of like organizations suggests that the authors consider this organization important, and I think that is enough. It would be better if the discussion of the subject was longer, but I think this passes WP:GNG even if by a tiny margin. I have attempted to trim back some of the promotional and unencyclopedic content, though more cleanup is still needed. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mia Mckenna Bruce

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

Teen actress. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete This youngster seems to be pushing nicely at WP:ENT, but there does not seem to be enough availabe upon which to build a dcent BLP. Schmidt, 00:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep - I'd be inclined to delete, but an EastEnders credit gives me pause to consider otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Friedman

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

I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - The tone of the article is about promotional, however Friedman has received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Behind pay walls, but the headline, and excerpt material make it very clear that Friedman is the primary subject of the coverage: Lexington Herald (January 25, 2008), San Luis Obispo Tribune (November 1, 2007). More readily readable are articles in the Boston Globe (March 20, 2009), Newsday (March 29, 2009), and Regina Leader-Post (DECEMBER 8, 2007). -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Keep as per added sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - What do you find deficient in the sources that I have noted above? -- Whpq (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The sources provided by Whpq establish notability. Non-neutral POV can be solved. §everal⇒|Times 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per reliable, secondary sources that qualify topic notability:

Tench, Megan (March 20, 2009.) "They're the piano men" Boston Globe.
Gamboa, Glenn (March 29, 2009.) "Matthew Friedman is movin in with 'Movin' Out'." Newsday.
(December 8, 2007.) "Friedman brings Joel to life on stage MOVIN' OUT— Conexus Arts Centre." Regina Leader-Post.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep- It may be short, but its sources are right. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep I know its a common name, but how hard did the nominator look? Search for his name and "Billy Joel" together and you get ample results on Google news archive search. Dream Focus 04:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Vas J Morgan

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

A celebrity blogger. Has been blogging for less than 9 months. References in the article just have him briefly mentioned... mentioned in the caption of a photo or mentioned that he was at a party. Unable to find any reliable sources about him. Prod was disputed. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Delete per nom. If and when he becomes notable, we'll revisit. Right now, tho, this looks like promotion of a not-yet-notable blogger. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep A simple google search will reveal that, not only is he a notable blogger, but he also has had several articles in press and notable blogs that do not just mention him briefly, he is also a notable socialite with a strong presence on Getty Images, a notable site known for catching Social Activities, he is not just a blogger ~~*Keep~~ I suggest keep the article, regardless of him mentioned in press briefly, he has still be mentioned and named and NOTED as a blogger, the article is extremely well written and there is no sign of trying to promote within the article. please point out where it is, if there is any, this is why the article was accepted in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.8.199 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep There is coverage in reliable third party sources, albiet currently only four. This submission had originally gone through Article for Creation, and I accepted it, as it was a borderline case. I believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant 17:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Article has reliable sources, but the comments below have convinced me that there currently isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Alpha_Quadrant 23:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - The sourcing in the article serves to verify that Vas J Morgan exists and is a celebrity blogger; however the coverage is insubstantial and primarily just mentioning his name. I was unable to find any sources of more substance. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete - blogger - no awards - nothing of note - promotion of a non independently notable person - Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Look, the GNG is pretty unambiguously written; it requires that subjects be written about in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources. I challenge the Keep proponents to find any such sources. The whole reason in the first place for Knowledge (XXG) to have notability criteria is to establish a minimum standard which subjects must meet. This one doesn't meet any of them, short of a new WP:BARNACLE guideline to cover casual mentions of wannabe celeb hangers-on at starlet hangouts. Ravenswing 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete as vanispambullshitpuffery. Whoever wrote that "Personal life" section should be <past-participial phrase redacted>. Years ago I proposed a "namedropping" template. A dozen of them should go on this article. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - practically a facebook page. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 17:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Lysergic Emanations

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

No indication of notability in the article. Can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. AllMusic devotes all of two sentences to the album, and that's all I was able to find anywhere. Powers 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The results from GBooks are actually very generous . While in some cases only a sentence is visible, it is easy to see from the context that they talk about the album in a critical manner. The results from GNews are mostly regarding the band's most recent activities, but here's an old review , and these three make note of the album as being significant — frankie (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Those Books results look to be primarily mentions not actual coverage. Powers 17:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Reagrdless of how many characters it takes, the content is mostly focused on the album, and in its treated in terms of its musical value. Even those that are just mentions appear in the context of critical analysis, as opposed as being mentioned in a list of all albums released that year, with the sixth link saying that it is one of the few worth seeking out (of that place/era/genre). And, again, the last three articles mention the album as one of the most significant of the band. The one from puglialive.net states that it achieved gold status, but I don't know how to verify that — frankie (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a genre classic. It's also ranked in top 100 record of 1985 on rateyourmusic and one the essential garage rock revival albums of the eighties. It's also rated 4.57 / 5 on discogs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.236.130.171 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete needs significant third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

'Keep and rescue per WP:BEFORE - more than passing mention at several sites and in books. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete No apparent reason to call this band or their album notable, and no reliable sources cited. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)