Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 19

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

< 18 November	20 November >

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 speedied A10 by Nyttend ‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: It's Assyrian Pentecostal Church with a few word changes). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Aramean Free Church

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

Delete, Clear hoax, found it while browsing CAT:HOAX. All Ghits are mirrors or people selling "". Sure lasted a while. StandFirm (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. Maybe speedy, if it qualifies. Joefridayquaker (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Article was created by copying and modifying the text of Assyrian Pentecostal Church. --Lambiam 02:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. This may not be all there is to the hoax by the article creator, User:BethMido: there is a long list of dubious edits. User:Suryoyono1 may also be involved (see e.g. this move). --Lambiam 02:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment I've tagged this for speedy deletion per G3. If I've been hasty in doing so, or if I'm out of place in doing so, please let me know. Joefridayquaker (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted under A10 per confirmation of Lambiam's comment. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 20 November 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 - blatant hoax. SmartSE (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Chavible

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

clearly false infomation, no evidence or proof, seems like some kid has just made it all up for a joke Mysterymoo (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete as hoax and WP:SNOW. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The main issue here is notability, since there are significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, thus notability criteria is satisfied. 山本一郎 (会話) 00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Cristina and Violetta Djeordsevic

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

Not a very highlighted incident. The Wang Yue incident was notable due to the international outcry. This hasn`t received the same treatment. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:01 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Retain - On the contrary, issue widely reported internationally in print-of-record newspapers as significant and controversial. crude news search. RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Only two of those reference this. A majority of those are from 1992 or other years in time. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:27 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Care to clarify? RashersTierney (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This article says as much about the lack of empathy in Italy as the Death of Wang Yue article says about China. WWGB (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete in my opinion it is not notable because it did not received enough international outcry. Searching on Google "Wang Yue" reports +200k pages, "Violetta Djeordsevic" less than 100 pages. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 19:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The children may not be named, but the incident has been referred to in these scholarly articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. There are certainly more if the search terms were refined. RashersTierney (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, reporting on the incident used a variety of spellings for the names of the victims. Early reporting was particularly inconsistent with their surnames and ages. It will require some effort to find all the articles using diverse spellings. Badon (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

199900 misspellings? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitur. There is no 200,000 Google search results threshold of notability. Badon (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. In addition, international media coverage of the deaths coincided with other Roma-related international controversy that occurred earlier the same year in Naples. Badon (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The drowning of two children was not in itself notable (from a Knowledge point of view), but the perceived indifference of beach goers as reported internationally most certainly is. This is what the article is about. RashersTierney (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article as of now is a 5-sourced stub that wasn't a highly carried story. I never heard the story until Badon created it. And please don't use that as a reason to keep it. The Wang Yue article is well sourced and was well talked about. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:50 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rash, you're essentially saying that people's apathy is the notable concept. So create an article on that, and delete this article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. You mean rename the article? RashersTierney (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean delete this article and add some of the content as an example of people's apathy to an existing or new article on people's apathy Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about a concept. It is about a notable incident as demonstrated by its international and scholarly coverage and analysis. RashersTierney (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there's nothing about this article that is "memorial" in nature. It is about one aspect of an anti-ziganism atmosphere in Naples that drew international attention for several months of 2008. Other related articles suggest the larger over-arching gypsy controversy is still ongoing within Italy, of which this article documents one of the small but most significant parts of interest to the world as a whole, outside Italy and Naples. Badon (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete and add the contents (just one paragraph) into Bystander effect. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that characterise this event in such terms? RashersTierney (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking here. Do you think the article currently being discussed for deletion isn't an example of the bystander effect? It seemed so to me. Since the article of this Italian incident is comprised of precisely one paragraph, it seems to me it could easily be incorporated into the bystander effect article. I don't see why I would need sources for that. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources presented in the article have rationalised the reaction of the beach-goers in terms of racism. I haven't seen it presented in terms of a social phenomenon that didn't have this as the central plank. The racism rationale may be mistaken, or at least may not be the sole cause. I just wondered if you had seen it explained somewhere (other than blogs, of which there are a number) as an example of 'bystander effect'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this AfD listing was the first I heard of this tragedy. It did instantly remind me of Kitty Genovese though, and that's a classic bystander effect scenario, so I thought perhaps this article could be incorporated into that article under the "Notable examples" subheading. It could be I'm underestimating the prejudice against the Roma in Italy, being an American I have little grasp on the subtleties of European ethnic relations, much to my chagrin. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is NOT an example of the bystander effect. The bystander effect is just marginally related enough to be in the see also section, and even that could easily be argued against. There's nothing to suggest that there was any possibility of rescuing the girls before they died, so it can't be used as an example of the bystander effect. The girls were killed by being dashed against the rocks, and subsequently drowning, presumably after losing consciousness. They were swimming with other friends/family who would surely have rescued them if they could have. If I remember correctly, they both died very quickly in an unusual event in an area that is not normally considered dangerous, so I assume they were not discovered to be in jeopardy until they were either already dead, or death was imminent.

For those reasons, I am skeptical of the accusations that racism was a factor in their deaths. Indeed, the reportage of the incident does not blame racism per se, but instead highlights the appearance of apathy amongst Italians in the aftermath of the deaths, as well as in the greater context of the aftermath of arsons of Romani camps just a few months earlier in the same city of Naples. Badon (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It is complicated, and agree that there was no malice involved in the deaths per se. It was the apparent indifference post mortem that caused a furore. If it is to be merged it should be in a racism context as that is how it has been reported, rightly or wrongly. RashersTierney (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A racism context is definitively NOT The bystander effect, so consequently, I can't think of a reason to merge the article into an unrelated article. Correct me if I wrong about that. Badon (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep a notable incident that was widely reported. Add some of the many Italian-language sources / content (needs to be done by someone who is bilingual). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Public Interest Advocacy Centre

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

Non Notable non-profit law firm firm, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mt king 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete The article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. A Google News search find a few mentions in Toronto newspapers (as well as mentions of an identically-named firm in Australia, so the article title is not unique) but they are just that, mentions. There is no substantial coverage ABOUT the firm that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ali Branzuela

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

This person does not seem strong enough to be notable. SyG (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Bubba73 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The FIDE rating card shows a maximum rating of 2294; that is a very strong player indeed, but it is still short of the International Master level where notability starts becoming borderline. Second place in the Phillippine Open is a good achievement, but the focus of coverage is on the winner, and I don't think the Open is as strong as a national championship. The coverage of Mr. Branzuela in the references is not strong enough to justify inclusion either I'm afraid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Agree with nom & two deletes. (Has the subject vandalized his own article?! Not worth improving.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to DGI-byen. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang 21:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandkulturhuset

AfDs for this article:

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

I slapped a {{multiple issues}} tag on this earlier today, but on further reflection I've decided to bring it here. The article survived an AfD back in 2008 with just two "keep" !votes—one by the article's creator—but the rationale of the nominator then remains valid: the article is certainly spammy (and contains no sources whatever). The place does get mentioned in travel guides, usually in the context of the hotel of which it is part, but I can't find the sort of substantive, third-party sources that would satisfy WP:N. Even the Danish Knowledge lacks an article on it. Deor (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to DGI-byen, the facility of which it is a part. It does not appear to be notable on its own. (The notability of DGI-byen itself may be questionable, but I'll leave that for others to evaluate.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect as above as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. The page is a puff piece, and I can find no reliable sources that provide any kind of in-depth coverage of the place. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Without prejudice to re-creation should the film become notable upon or after its release. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures Of Lily (2011 film)

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

Article about a "low-budget feature film", originally posted by its makers. Of the two references, Front Row Reviews was written by the assistant producer, and the other is a local paper gossip-column piece about the making of the film in Brighton; there is also a link to a local radio interview with the writer/director. No release date is mentioned on the film's website or Facebook page; it does not appear in IMDb. Searches are complicated by the fact that the name is that of a song by The Who, but I have found nothing to suggest that this meets the standard of WP:Notability (films). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Userfy or Incubate until this one is released and gets greater coverage. Schmidt, 02:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Userfy or Incubate. There's no harm in allowing the editor to userfy this until the film is released. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete - No evidence of meeting Knowledge's inclusion criteria. - Whpq (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Retain - In the US, this would be classified as an "Independent" film. There are several other films within the Knowledge system that have started off with stubs like this and eventually expanded to be good articles, so I'd say retain. BTW, I've gotten little notices lately that the IMDB is not an indicator of notability, as the information is (like Wikpedia) submitted by the public. Whatever, there's always a delay before IMDB info appears. The editor has been blocked, too, which complicates letting him/her userfy the article. Pkeets (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

- Comment - So how would this expand into a good article? What sources would you use? This may become a notable in the future, but right now it doesn't. -- Whpq (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  - As you suggest, sources to expand the article may or may not become available later. Contacting the author about "incubating" and unblocking him/her is one option. Also, as the film is in production, perhaps we might, according to the guidelines on incomplete films, merge the article with the Brighton article and redirect from the current article page. If we agree by consensus on that, I'll be happy to handle the revisions. Pkeets (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    - This should definitely not be merged into the Brighton article. That is an article about a city, this is about a film - simply would not be appropriate to do that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NFF and probably WP:GNG. No reason to userfy, as only pertinent information is the synopsis which is a copyvio anyway as directly copied from official site. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- The original author says in the comments that he wrote both, and reworded the Knowledge article after being challenged. There is a section in the Brighton article about films shot there, where mention of this film would fit. Pkeets (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  - No - it most definitely would not fit in the Brighton article. The section on films is just an overview of films that have been shot there, currently just a sentence long. Including it there would give undue weight to this (currently) non-notable film. The synopsis is verbatim from the official website, so it clearly hasn't been re-written. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    - Besides, with a lack of reliable third party sources, there would be nothing to add. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    - I concur that merging to the Brighton article is not viable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      - Has anyone considered unblocking the original author to address some of these issues? It seems a little odd that he/she was blocked, and then a notice placed on his/her talk page about the deletion discussion. Did he/she provide the required statement for use of the wording? Am I correct that he/she is unable to participate in the current discussion? Copyright issues are easy to fix.Pkeets (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
        The block was a for a user name violation. It won't be unblocked. However, there are instructions in the block notice that indicate how to register a new user name. And to my knowledge, there's nothing stopping the original author from participating using only an IP address. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. There seems to be consensus that subject is not notable right now, and considering that it's an independent picture directed by and starring a bunch of unknowns, it seems unlikely to ever reach WP:GNG in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- We do have article on Knowledge of independent films, cast with unknowns, that did became notable enough for Knowledge upon release, and I am myself unable with such certainty as you to declare that this one would not. As my crystal ball does not work very well (chuckle), I chose incubation as the better option... since returning it to its COI author is problematic. Schmidt, 04:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Francesca Cezan

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to indicate notability of this person. Tagged for notability for over two years. Also an orphan.Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete' - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Jorge Ramos (Brazil)

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

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability of this person. Tagged for notability (and for being an orphan) for three and a half years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedily deleted as advertising (the spelling problem was not a reason). Peridon (talk)

Rv musuem

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

This RV museum doesn't seem to have much third-party coverage from a Google search, and it reads more like an advertisement than it does an encyclopedia article. Logan _Talk 20:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Black names and racism in the hiring process

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

Way too much soapboxing and synthesis to be a viable encyclopedia article. On the article's talk page, an editor opined that this reads like someone's term paper, and I have to agree. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete While this is a notable topic, the present article has so many POV problems that the text is useless. Although the selection of references is also biased, some are useful. I suggest copying the reference list into userspace, and starting over. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't have put it better than Alessandra did. It's a notable topic but right now there's serious neutrality issues as well as soapboxing. It just reads like original research even with the resources linked in it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete This is a biased topic and is not suitable, as above. —>εϻαdιν _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Weak delete; could be notable in principle but we'd want substantially changed (and broadened) content at a completely new title, I think. Although sourced, the existing content has problems and the title invites further problems. Userfying it could be a good move. bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have no problem with it being userfied. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Neither do I, of course, but the article's creator appears to be inactive, so there may not be much point in doing so. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that the article is in need of work, but that the topic is notable and there is enough present to turn into a viable encyclopaedia article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Lensbaby

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

No proof of notability, looks like advertisment. Is wired reliable source? PtQa (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: While not as big a manufacturer as Canon or Nikon, Lensbaby's lenses are popular with photographers. Wired is reasonably reliable for gadget news, and there are lots of other sources that could be used, such as dpreview or luminous-landscape. -- Autopilot (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For all I know, the head of the company may have been an award-winning photojournalist, but the article is far too credulous when claiming this on the strength of what his company's website says about him. There are other problems with the article too. Warning templates are needed. But as Autopilot says, other sources can be added. Here for example is a mere mention of "lensbabies", but one that shows their significance. Keep (and improve). -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Stubify likely-notable subject but the article appears POV-pushing / promotional. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a bunch of the promotional language, laundry lists of products, bare links, etc. Thank for the reference suggestions. Any further thoughts? -- Autopilot (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Achondroplasia in children

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

This article is not encyclopedic in nature and has many inaccurate statements. There is already an article on Achondroplasia that is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdradius (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Relisted due to lack of heading. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as dubious medial information or stubify. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously? What makes it dubious...it is a genetic disorder.Sngourd (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This topic is clearly notable. The vague, handwaiving assertion of inaccuracy contained in the nomination is extremely unhelpful. Without specific cases identified, the nominator would have us comb through the article sentence by sentence to verify every bit of information before the article could be kept. This expectation of AFD participants is not reasonable. However, just to ensure that the article isn't far afield from mainstream medicine, I've randomly selected a few consecutive sentences to verify. From the "Care of Achondroplasic Children" section:

The home setting for an achondroplasic child should be modified in a way that is fitting for a child with a growth mutation. Toys should be considered and altered to fit the needs of the child, or size of the child, such as tricycles and backyard playground equipment. Other fixtures in the home should be replaced to attainable heights for the children such as light switches or door knobs.

This information is cited to Trotter, Tracy L., Judith G. Hall. "Health Supervision for Children with Achondroplasia" Pediatrics. 116.3 (2005): 771-783. Conveniently, the referenced article is available online. The following text from the reference directly supports the material quoted above:

Consider adapting the home so that the child can become independent (eg, lower the light switches, use lever door handles and lever sink faucets, make the toilet accessible, and supply step stools)

Discuss adaptation of toys, especially tricycles, to accommodate short limbs.

While the excerpt from the article is not written in the same way as the supporting reference, it normally shouldn't be. Properly verifying content requires a willingness to transpose its meaning to syntactically dissimilar source material. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - assuming it's not a total copyvio, this is a notable topic; even rare diseases can be notable. Needs copyedits and rescue. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep The article was originally written by one person, and had a list of books information came from, plus was longer. Perhaps the author didn't realize an article for Achondroplasia already existed. Anyway, I see there is enough valid information to warrant a separate article, since merging it would make the other one too long. Dream Focus 09:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep To delete an article that is describing a medical syndrome that is proven by evidence would be a mistake. Even if it is rare, that is not a reason to delete it.Sngourd (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Of purely local interest, not a likely search term. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Huddle Up Nittany Lion Fans

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

No indication of notability for this campus-produced television program about Penn State athletics. Appears on a single channel. Unreferenced. Fails WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to WPSU-TV. There is nothing to indicate this local program is notable. Written in press-release style. Created by User:PSU442, an WP:SPA with a likely conflict of interest . --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Cannabis political parties. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Marijuana Parties

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

- Yes, yes it is. Delete this article and I'll change the ref that links to it. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 19:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirect if there's no content worth merging. Sounds like a job for regular editing rather than an AfD... Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Cannabis political parties. This stand-alone list is redundant.--JayJasper (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Convert to a category. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —SMALL JIM 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Dinkoverte

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

Company of questionable notability, possible hoax. Only provided refs are pictures of articles, which may or may not be real. Google search on the name shows only two results, both on Knowledge. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - not many articles start off with actual references to what appear to be real magazines. I'd wait and see, but then I am a dirty old-school inclusionist. :P Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen similar actions before from SPAs. But surely, if these were real magazine articles, there would be other references popping up in Google searches. I find it odd that the same image of a chair (with the same image artifacts) is used in both images. Also, one of the images claims to be from the November issue of Skylife magazine - the only Skylife magazine I could find has no mention of it in their online version, but feel free to look for yourself. As for Promotions & Incentives magazine, it appears to be defunct, with their domain nothing but a placeholder, so that also makes me wonder about the credibility of that image. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good points. I take it back. 78.148.22.247 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: a small technology company .... Founded in 2010. Their first and only product is a hardware/software hybrid designed to alleviate the stress of the modern commuter dealing with too many gadgets. Yeah, like that's going to work. (And what the hell is it, really?) "References" are to images hosted at free image hosting sites, and so self-published sources at minimum, and possible hoaxes or PR stunts. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. The claim that this technology product managed to cause controversy yet managed to escape the notice of everybody on the internet is completely incredible. A technology gadget that doesn't even score a single mention on any blog? That's simply not credible. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hazem Shoukry Designs

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

Article about a company that does not meet WP:CORP. The author's supposed references are not helpful - four of them do not even mention Hazem Shoukry Designs, the fifth is clearly not a reliable, independent, published source. The claims of notability are suspicious. For example, despite several searches I cannot find any evidence that Hazem Shoukry has been interviewed by the BBC. Unless the claims to notability can be supported with sources, there is nothing to suggest this company should be covered in a Knowledge article. Sparthorse (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 18:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The references ARE reliable , the first one (florida designs) - the company's name's written if u SCROLL down. In the third reference (sonesta hotel) if you open the link and scroll down, under the sub-title "Executive floors" you will find a picture, in the picture there's a window in the top that is made by hazem shoukry designs. in the fifth reference, the company made the WHOLE building! - and by the way no hotel whatsoever would write the name of the company that made their building. about the BBC interview, we have the full CD. i can upload it on youtube for anyone to see. the rest of the references i'll post their details where you can find the company's work quickly. Farah26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farah26 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Message body http://www.marriott.com/hotels/photo-tours.mi?marshaCode=caijw&pageID=HWGLF&imageID=7&roomTypeCode= The Castle Club (360°) thats the link for the " JW marriot" . open the link and see it for yourself. scroll up the image ( move up) you will see a glass ceiling. it is considered one of the biggest and finest glass domes in the world. --Farah26 (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Number 15 in the link " http://www.floridadesign.com/sourcefinder/category/architectural-stoneworks/" -which is a reference- is Hazem Shoukry Designs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farah26 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded in detail at Talk:Hazem Shoukry Designs. In short, none of these are close to being reliable sources. Sparthorse (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

does that mean that the page will be deleted ? --Farah26 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion will run for seven days. During that time any editor is welcome to contribute to the discussion. During that time you, or anyone else, can provide reliable sources to show how the subject of this article is notable. This would be taken into account by the editors commenting here. At the end of seven days, an editor (usually an administrator) will close the discussion and decide whether or not the article should be deleted. You can find more details of the process at WP:AFD. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Open this link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hazem-Shoukry-Designs/303407606336263?sk=wall and you'll find the interview with BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farah26 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bennie Brownlow

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable baseball figure. Leading a minor league team to a championship as manager does not make one notable. Lack of coverage makes him non-notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete I found not a single reference from the Sporting News archives, the most likely place to find rare coverage of notable minor league players and managers. Google news archives, zero results. He is mentioned in passing in a result on Google Books. Article's assertion of notability fails WP:BASE/N, and there is nothing to support WP:GNG. Agent Vodello 20:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note The article's creator has flagged the article for rescue. However, it is quite odd, considering the article's creator was the first user to nominate this article for deletion at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bennie Brownlow. Why rescue what you brought to AFD earlier with zero references? Agent Vodello 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC

Because Knowledge is "just a game" to the article's creator. Closing admin may want to glance at Knowledge:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs. 00:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - my search results turned up exactly the same as Vodello's. Fails GNG, BASE/N, and there are no reliable sources in the article at this time. — KV5 • Talk • 23:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - While I think we are often over-zealous in deleting minor leaguers from this era, this player never made the highest level of the minor leagues, and I have found virtually nothing about him in a search (apart from a quote from a player he managed in D-leagues). So I think deletion is appropriate here. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I tagged this for rescue on the off-chance that there are non-Internet/non-free/other sources that someone has access to that would make this notable, like with Red Snapp, for example. However, unless such sources are uncovered, I'm going with delete. It's a shame Paper of Record isn't free anymore. Alex (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jon Shain

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

~~Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find reliable sources.~~ — Racconish 17:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Did you check Google News?:

Many of these reviews are behind paywalls, but the articles specifically note him in the titles, suggesting they are exclusively about him and his work. They also are not limited to simply local coverage. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I did, but obviously I didn't. Withdrawing my nomination with apologies. — Racconish 18:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 02:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Conference India

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

No significant coverage of what is ultimately a conference similar to the thousands of conferences going on each and every month. The sources cited in the article are borderline reliable, some are simple event calendars, others are outlets that just publish press releases. Significant coverage is required and it is not there, even in Indian news outlets. Pantherskin (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge into 2011 in India or somewhere else. Local recurring event that hardly meets WP:EVENT, the majority if not all pages in Category:Knowledge meetups and Category:Knowledge culture are outside the main space. Brandmeister t 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
If this was the inaugural event of an annually recurring conference then merger into a year based article would be inappropriate. Local is not really an appropriate description for an Indian national event - national or subcontinental would be more appropriate. The majority of Knowledge meetups aren't covered by articles, but Wikimania certainly is, and while that event is global not subcontinental, Wikiconference India was an unusual Wikimedia event not least for being probably our largest event yet. (COI disclosure - I was one of the International attendees). Ϣere SpielChequers 05:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Please don't waste your time here. The Conference is still running, and we are going to cite well with reliable sources. Have patience. Nobody is making money out of it. Its all part of Outreach Program. I don't understand How you guys end up here. Then delete Wikimania also. -- ɑηsuмaη 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:COI. It is not a particular good idea to use Knowledge to promote events of your organization, even if you are not making any money out of it. The mainspace of Knowledge is for encyclopaedic content; not for the announcement and advertisement of Knowledge-related events. Pantherskin (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
How am I connected with this subject ?? Being an Indian or being a member of India chapter ?? I am not even attending the Conference.

One more thing when you are adding maintenance tag to an article, please do not forget to add date. Thank you. -- ɑηsuмaη 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Veryhuman (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Its flabbergasting that this was nominated. See the dozens of Reliable sources mentioning this. Please, keep the AfD listing relevant Veryhuman (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate how this satisfies WP:EVENT. Being covered in reliable sources (as are many conferences) is no guarantee that the event is notable. Pantherskin (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What kind of logic is that? What is your definition of notable? In any case, it'd be good advice for you to read the WP:EVENT guideline Veryhuman (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Extensive coverage in reliable sources such as The Hindu and The Times of India shows that this event is notable, even if it associated with the project that you and I are working on. Yes, our project and its various conferences can be notable. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here. You need to demonstrate how this satisfies WP:EVENT. Being covered in reliable sources does not mean that a conference is automatically notable. Pantherskin (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What's required according to WP:EVENT is "non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." I think all bases are covered now except "over a period of time". The coverage is far more than is routine for the vast majority of conferences, and is in the highest quality national and global sources. The BBC covered it here. There is no exact definition of what that "period of time" might be. So, let's keep the article for now and see what sort of coverage there is over time. We should look for "further analysis or discussion", and please note that just because "an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." The article can be nominated for deletion again in the future if the threshold is not met. Now, it looks like it meets the threshold to me. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per all points given above. Its a major event, and even we have related articles such as India map dispute between Knowledge and the BJP. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 08:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Jimmy himself said that this was one of the biggest gatherings of Wikipedians ever (yes, I was there when he said it, sue me for WP:OR). AfD is the last place where I thought I'd see this article. And how does a recurring event automatically become non notable? Over a period of time is irrelevant here; you cannot expect a media house to keep writing articles about WCI 2011 till the next WCI comes along. The fact is that this got a lot of coverage, and I cannot really point out which section of WP:EVENT is violated. Lynch 7 09:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Everyone in the Indian media has written an article on it (even before the protests at the conference), also noteworthy is the BBC article. --Redtigerxyz 10:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Redtigerxyz. Easily satisfies WP:GNG with continuous coverage in national media.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Per all points given above.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep As per above.No more clarification is required Mayur 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep It is quite clear that there is significant coverage and discussion of the event in reliable sources. It was extensively covered in Indian media. Silver seren 19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:SNOW. International coverage. BBC and Reuters don't cover every event worldwide. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of reliable resources are available including BBC, The Hindu, Times Of India. --Anoopan (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep- I think the event has got good coverage and I think it is notable.--Rameshng (talk) 05:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep- The conference has got enough coverage in the media and it is notable also. keep the article - Rajesh K Odayanchal (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep- Keep the article as the conference has got a huge coverage over the medias and hence got the NOTABILITY! --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability standards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete (closing as speedy). Neutrality 06:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Feudalist Party

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

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

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

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

Despite the party's founders' assertions, I remain unconvinced that this organization is notable. I couldn't find any sources in Google News or Google Books, and it sounds suspiciously like something made up in school one day. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Although founded by high school students, I find no reason to believe this is not a genuine or serious political movement. It may not be mainstream by any means, but the references do claim it is a "grassroots" organization and is newly formed. I for one, would encourage this kind of of activism (even if I may not agree with their policy)for teenagers in my area. All political parties do, after all, have to start somewhere. I would find it disappointing for Knowledge to delete this page and attack these students' interest in politics and current events simply because their ideas are not necessarily agreeable or because the "feudalist party" has not yet become popular. Giantsfan11 (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Giantsfan11 — Giantsfan11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy Delete - This is at best a bunch of teenagers geetting a bit carried away about their little club. The fact that they are unable to remember when it was founded or name the founders suggest that they are too ashamed to put their own names to it. Dross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutyscenee (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Nothing of interest to be seen here. --Axel™ (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This was an informative and intriguing article. I was interested to learn that younger generations are embracing historical politics with such enthusiasm. Keep the page as others could stand to learn from it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.182.86 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Feudalism has always been one of my favorite historical periods. I would support leaving this page on wikipedia in the hopes that it can gain more attention from people like me who enjoy reading about Feudalism Parkerpulaski (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)parkerpulaski — Parkerpulaski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete There was a historical Feudalist Party, but that's not what the article is about. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow! I never thought I would see the day where FEUDALISM saw a resurgence in the political world. It sounds to me, based on what I read in their cited sources, that the founders of this party feel strongly about their ideals and are trying hard to inform others of them. I feel the page should not be deleted because for all we know this is a completely legitimate movement with today's youth. Why should we prohibit knowledge of their party from being shared on Knowledge? 68.42.182.86 (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)historybuff19
Hi 68.42.182.86, and thanks for commenting in this deletion discussion. This is just to let you know that you shouldn't usually "vote" more than once in deletion discussions (although this process is not a vote). Have a look at WP:AFDEQ for more advice on commenting here. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 05:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, User:68.42.182.86 didn't put even one boldfaced "vote" in this AfD, much less more than one. They have only submitted multiple comments, which is allowed. I disagree with their comments but they haven't abused the AfD process. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I for one think that we should be encouraging kids to get active in the political system and allow them to help decide values for themselves as opposed to telling them to go eat dirt. Who knows? Maybe this could really be the "next big thing". Cathcon (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Cathcon
Note to closing admin: Cathcon (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete None of the sources meet the guidelines for reliable sources, and there is no evidence that this party has ever been registered at any level. If, someday, this party gains momentum, an article will be forthcoming. But, at this point, there is nothing to suggest this is a notable political party under either WP:GNG or WP:NGO. Joefridayquaker (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This party has not yet been covered in sufficient reliable independent sources to qualify as a notable organization. Of the three sources, two are pages on Facebook and Wikispaces (not independent), and the third is a page explaining feudalism in medieval history (not mentioning this particular party). I would be reluctant to support having a Knowledge article about this party until they (a) enter an actual political election and (b) receive coverage in independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete Clearly something invented in school one day; not notable in the least. ¿SFGiДnts! 07:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Since when does something have to be, "On Google Books or Google News" to be reliable? Just because this is a different idea to the traditional ways of American society doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nothing can become nation wide in one day. How are many of these ideas supposed to arise if they are immediately shunned and taken down? Allow these people, that obviously feel very strong about their opinion, express it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Show some support (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Show some support (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- If your reliable sources aren't on Google Books or Google News, where are they? And I would note that many political parties were created throughout the world and some became very successful even before Knowledge ever existed. I am not expecting you (the Feudalist Party) to get a president of the United States elected before you can have a Knowledge article. I am just expecting you to run a candidate in an actual election and get some legitimate coverage in reliable independent sources. Does that sound too difficult? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Its hard to get any support when the idea just gets shot down right away the way it is here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.92.162 (talk • contribs)
I'm not saying that I agree with the party or that you have to agree with the party. All that I'm saying is that this is a group of highly motivated people that are just trying to be heard. Many people claim that the young generation is disinterested in politics. Now that there is a group that wants to get involved, there idea is shot down. Who is to determine what is a legitimate idea and whats a "High School Prank"? From the goals and ideas listed on the page, this seems way to thought out to be a high school prank. 03:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Show your Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.92.162 (talk • contribs)
- Please see WP:GNG, WP:ORG & WP:NOR. Note that Knowledge is, by its own defined standards, a tertiary source. Which basically means that is not a place to generate publicity or to "be heard", but rather it documents subjects that have already "been heard" - which is to say given significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you're trying to create publicity, there are other more appropriate outlets for doing so on the internet (e.g. blogs, social media). You can also start a letter-writing campaign to newspapers & other media outlets. Then, when the Feudalist Party has received significant attention in reliable outside sources, come back and recreate the article. Until then, sorry to say, Knowledge is simply the wrong venue.--JayJasper (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to hear about anything, including this so-called "Feudalist Party", it's common knowledge that the first place to go is wikipedia. People are probably calling for this article's deletion because they think that including something like this will make wikipedia less reliable or something. That, I believe, would be wrong. In fact, including this, along with the articles on other pages of things people maybe haven't heard of before, is what makes wikipedia one of the best free sources for information around. Are there that many sites where you can find a list of counties in a certain state? The list of representatives from Wyoming's At-Large District? No. That is what makes wikipedia great and that's why I say we should be keeping this article. 68.41.80.143 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)— 68.41.80.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep First of all, I do not understand the obsession about whether or not this party was mentioned in Google Books or Google News. It is not a book, and Google News is only one of a virtually unlimited amount of news sources. The party's absense from these sites seems totally irrelevant to this discussion. Clearly it is rooted in a number of other sources and therefore is recognized in more than one place. In addition, the fact that this party has not yet produced a candidate in an election has nothing to do with whether or not it is a real political party. In the United States of America, I might add, 2011 (when it was founded) was not an election year. They have not been around long enough to even have had the chance to nominate a candidate for any notable election (for all we know they could be planning an election bid as we write here). Anyways, this party is obviously starting from the ground up so it doesn't make sense to me why we are expecting libraries full of information about it within months of the creation. We shouldn't be so quick to shoot it down. — Tulsa667 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom, obviously authored by someone with a COI; content is wholly promotional and unverified. — Jean Calleo 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep The idea that this page is a conflict of interest is absurd. While reading it, I found it completely objective and informative. Nowhere in the article did the writer use the words "I" or "We" so as to suggest this page is promotional. It is merely a reflection of what was already established in the source websites. — Dumdumdum4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: WP:MADEUP. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete I'm sure the kids have enjoyed their fifteen minutes of Knowledge fame, but come on! This is an absolutely classic example of something made up one day and it has no place in Knowledge. That's what Facebook is for, and these kids know it: in fact they are canvassing for meatpuppets on their Facebook page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. But I do have to say, kids, this was clever and I enjoyed it! Keep doing fun creative stuff like this - just not on Knowledge! --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Despite Carrite's passionate plea, IAR of a BLP still needs N and RS. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Chad Patton (referee)

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

Non-notable wrestling referee. Originally AFDed at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chad Patton. Repeatedly recreated after that, and after the original name was salted it was recreated at the new name, and escaped notice there until now. But since that was 4 years back I'm giving this a chance at a new AFD, in case there are any new independent sources that can be found to show that there is now some notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - The subject remains non-notable, with no reliable sources available. ItsZippy 15:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Knowledge is part serious encyclopedia, part pop culture compendium. The lines between these dual functions are blurred and officially no such differentiation is made. In practice, however, very different attitudes correspond to each of these dual functions with regards to inclusion-worthiness — and rightfully so, I think. Pop culture cruft is generally treated leniently, "hard" content strictly. Thus we have had articles on garage bands and fictional TV characters and children's books successfully defended, but articles on career journalists or professional politicians or the history of diplomatic relations of small nations bounced unceremoniously. Serious content is met with strict adherence to guidelines for inclusion, soft content is often more or less given a pass. This is more or less the consensus of the community, albeit implicit rather than explicit. Chad Patton's bio is pop-culture cruft. Much like Mike Chioda, he is a "character" on the popular television series disguised as a sports league called "World Wrestling Entertainment." As long as material is verifiable and not defamatory, as things are in this tolerably well-footnoted piece, things should be given a pass. This is essentially self-sourced, and therein lies the rub with respect to formal notability doctrine. That is not a problem in this case, I argue, since this is essentially a character on a massively popular TV show — thus the continual efforts at recreation of a piece on the topic. Give the people what they want, that's what helps makes Knowledge great. IAR Keep. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep - while the person is marginally notable, it still may be of interest to some readers and sought for for non-pop reasons (including research). Since the article is reasonable well written and sourced, I'd keep it. Pundit|utter 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Lots of reference on 'tinternet. Clearly noteable in his field eveen if his field is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutyscenee (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that some of these "Lots of references" are Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial, it would be nice if some of them could be added to the article itself. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Two such references would be all it would take to conclusively show that he passes WP:BIO. If those could be provided on the article, it would go a long was towards showing that I was incorrect in my evaluation. But until/unless they are found, then I remain of the opinion that he simply does not meet the notability criteria, and should be deleted, just like the original AFD result. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, because all of the other referees have articles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Leo (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment So far, in my sight, the Keep votes are either WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, or talk about references being out there, but making no effort to actually provide such references to the article. The existing references in the article do not meet the three requirements for WP:RS, Reliable, Independent, and Non-Trivial. Specifically most fail the Independent part. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage and none of the above keep votes have provided any sources, either, so I don't think the guy (or character) meets WP:GNG. I agree with TexasAndroid that all the above keep votes are incredibly weak. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedied G12 by Malik Shabazz (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Kovu Sajkor

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

Biographical article that lacks substansive sourcing. I believe notability is questionable, and have not found much in the way of sourcing. I don't speak any Serbian, so that doesn't help much in finding sources, but I do believe there is actually very little to none available. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - the article is swarming with weasels, non-sourced, and the person most likely is non-notable (vanity press/self-publishing only). If this teenager really becomes "an icon" as the article claims, there will be plenty of sources to support it. Pundit|utter 16:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially an unsourced BLP; Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.kovusajkor.webs.com/ Hairhorn (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Coverage of subject is minimal, but discussion provided no consensus on whether it is enough or not. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Kittenpants

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

Unremarkable website/web content. No significant coverage - Google news search shows only 10 results, all trivial mentions or content written by Ratliff. Standard search shows the typical mix of social media, blogs, primary and/or unreliable sources - nothing approaching a reliable source in the first 15 pages of results. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - The list of ex-staff members and, especially, the list of interviews is sufficient to establish the publication's notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - How does any of this pertain to the notability requirements for magazines or web content? I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ No independent sources supporting the notability of this web content. All current sources are primary. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment – See , . Northamerica1000 20:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak delete Struck my original position above. Sources noted, and are WP:INDEPENDENT, but I'm not convinced this kind of coverage rises to the level of notability as also noted by Ravenswing below. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep, seems to produce just enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Turqoise127 04:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete – This isn't the subject of substantial reliable coverage, nor is it award-winning, non-trivial, or anything else at WP:NMEDIA. It's apparently defunct, so it doesn't seem likely to gain notability in the future. ...Ex-staff members? Really? No better coattails? JFHJr (㊟) 05:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete — The interviewees seem to present some importance, but doesn't meet notability requirements, and is not likely to gain importance. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Would any Keep proponents care to name what specific sources they think meet the GNG - to wit, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail?" I'm not seeing any. The reliable sources only mention the subject in passing, if at all, and those that mention the subject in more detail are, well, the subject's website. Assuming that the interviewees the article claims were actually interviewed on this site, notability is not inherited. Ravenswing 06:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep – Per availability of reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail: , . Northamerica1000 20:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The first source you mention devotes a single paragraph to this blog as part of a much larger article. The second source devotes a single sentence to this blog, again as part of a larger article. The GNG explicitly holds that mentions of such length are "plainly trivial." Ravenswing 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It has more coverage than that in both those sources. Did you just read the first area "kittenpants" appeared or did you search through the entire article? Dream Focus 12:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply: I read both, thanks. So tell me, what exactly beyond "Her blog, a mix of ridicule of others and self-deprecation, shares just the kind of snap-judgment zaniness that makes Fancy and Schmancy work. The name Kittenpants, for example, "doesn't really mean anything. Some people think it's about cute kittens, others about porn, but it is neither." Her social commentary is too dirty for Ratliff, who is moving to the Central District from New York in the beginning of July, to share it with her parents" and "Then there's the Kittenpants wingding Saturday, April 28, at Dan's Silverleaf in Denton, which, in keeping with Kittenpants' tradition of goofball Web antics and gentle sarcasm, stars Andrew W.K. and Corn Mo, both of whom live in their own bizarre world in which the concepts of crazy artifice and genuine wacko slip, slide and finally crash together" are you seriously claiming constitues "significant" discussion of this blog? (That's being generous, by the bye, and stipulating that those sentences do constitute "discussion" of this blog.)
I will repeat: the GNG explicitly holds that mentions of such length are "plainly trivial." Ravenswing 12:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak Delete — The sources that are independent and reliable don't seem to provide a level of coverage that would be considered significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - many passing mentions is not sufficient. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Northamerica1000's sources prove notability. Dream Focus 12:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Relisting purely because of the renewed debate based on Northamerica1000's links. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 13:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was relisted. Northamerica1000's links plainly show that deletion is not appropriate for this material. There are very few blogs that generate that kind of coverage.—S Marshall T/C 14:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True. Most blogs get ZERO coverage, instead of the two and a half sentences over two sources that this one did. Of course, according to the GNG, that level of coverage is "plainly trivial" and insufficient to support notability. Did you have some other notability criteria in mind aside from the GNG? Ravenswing 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to patronise me, Ravenswing. I'm too old and I've been here too long to put up with that crap. You know perfectly well which criterion I meant and you can plainly see that the coverage is more than a trivial mention.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The GNG is quite explicit that citations of around a sentence or two in length constitutes "plainly trivial" mentions. If you don't actually believe mentions that small should be debarred from passing the GNG, the proper place to argue that is on the GNG's talk page, not here. In any event, we can only judge whether the subject passes the relevant notability criteria as that criteria is set forth. I am unclear what reliable sources independent of the subject which that subject in genuine substantive length, and therefore satisfy the explicit text of the GNG, you believe you're seeing, but I don't, in fact, "plainly see" any. Ravenswing 20:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The GNG doesn't say that at all. What it says is that a particular one-sentence mention is plainly trivial. And notability isn't for this. The purpose of WP:N is to help rid the encyclopaedia of marketing spam. It wasn't originally intended to be a mechanism for deleting material written by good faith users who're genuinely trying to inform and educate, and in my opinion, it's being misused here. These rules are a means to an end, not things to be blindly enforced for their own sake. Deleting this article will not enhance the encyclopaedia. All this wikidealism would be better spent on BLPs, you know.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's pure sophistry - the GNG footnote obviously holds that one-sentence mentions are trivial. That being said, once again, if you dislike that notability standards are being used to judge whether a subject is, well, notable, your proper venue for making that argument - and in swaying consensus to your POV - is elsewhere. Beyond that, no one is "blindly" applying rules here; we are doing so in the full belief that this blog is not notable, and as such does not merit an article on Knowledge. That you don't like our stance is obvious, but for someone complaining about patronizing, you appear quite willing to patronize others in suggesting that we can only be willing to apply Knowledge policies and guidelines out of unthinking reflex. Ravenswing 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This article cites two independent sources, one of which has more than one sentence about Kittenpants, and the other of which has "Kittenpants" in its actual title. These strike me as very different cases from the genuinely trivial mention in the GNG footnote. I do think the purpose of notability is as a way of detecting and removing spam, and I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say that here.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I don't believe that the sources provided demonstrate notability. The sources seems to mention the website in passing, none of them are about the website itself, so none of them establish notability. Unless as source about the website is found, it is not notable. ItsZippy 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Sources are sufficient. JORGENEV 05:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you believe that? The sources are all either self-published or only mention the website in passing. Taking only the third-party sources: This is an interview with Darci Ratliff, the editor of Kittenpants. The source give notability to Ratliff, not the website, which is only mentioned in passing. The website is not even the sole focus of the interview, which seems more focused on Ratliff himself. This, again, is about Ratliff, not the website itself. I would struggle to see how that source even gives notability to Ratliff himself, never mind his website. This is nothing to do with the website at all, but about Ratliff and a shop he is opening. The website is mentioned three times, to give context or as a brief example. The source never focuses on Kittenpants at all. Finally, this is about an event, which has Kittenpants as a part of it. This gives notability to the event, not to the website. Thus, I cannot see how any of the sources provided establish any kind of notability. ItsZippy 22:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  - The first one you mention is in fact about Kittenpants, the guy asked him about it throughout the interview. "What's currently rumbling at Kittenpants?" "Is Corn Mo a Kittenpants groupie or is Kittenpants a Corn Mo groupie?" "What's up with the KP call to Action?" etc. shows coverage about Kittenpants, not just the Ratliff. Dream Focus 22:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    - You mean that blogger? Great. What makes that a reliable source? Ravenswing 17:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      - Yes, Gothamist is a reliable source. Dream Focus 21:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
        Some pertinent questions then - did Gothamist have editorial control of Kittenpants? and if so where is the ref that says this? Szzuk (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Notability hasn't been established with those refs. The author/owner shut the website down herself. What does that say? I can start a comedy website, maintain it for a bit, get a few hits here and there, then what? I don't make anything and go and get a job. Szzuk (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, but improve sources. There is adequate notability but recommend increasing and diversifying the number of sources.Sngourd (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was No consensus to delete. While it's not immediately clear whether the sources are reliable, and the keep arguments aren't the strongest I've ever seen, it's clear that after three and a bit weeks there no consensus to delete this article at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fatshark

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

Declined PROD. Concern = Fails to meet criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY, company profile listings, forums, and/or are self-populated and not reliable per WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:31, 5 November 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) 22:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Fatshark's development of a recent game, Krater, seems to have gotten quite a lot of coverage last week. Very timely!:

Fatshark announces post-apocalyptic action-RPG 'Krater'
Fatshark announces post-apocalyptic RPG Krater, valiantly attempts to explain it
Fatshark is making a Krater
I also found two interviews with developers in company regarding two different games that were somewhat successful:

All in all, I'd say this is enough coverage. ~~I'll add it to the article now.~~ Added. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: These sources are not reliable per WP:RS. They are blogs with content derived from a Fatshark announcement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are they not reliable? And what is wrong with coverage that discusses the content of announcements? They are made by independent sources, so I do not why they should be discounted. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 13:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep- has obviously recieved some coverage for its games.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep sources seem legitimate enough to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tulsa667 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: User Tulsa667 first edited on 24 November 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Knowledge:Please do not bite the newcomers. Tinton5 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The user very likely only signed up to comment on this discussion; adding that note was justified. — Jean Calleo 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And considering the extreme lack of interest in this AfD, an WP:SPI to include also User:81.224.129.54 may be appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: A review of the sources:

pcgamer Dead link: page not available.
asia.gamespot No mention of FatShark
GiantBomb Freely editable content
games.ign a 3-line company listing
moddb Product page of the online sales catalogue of Moddb
thgr Interview on Tom's Oyun, a Turkish sub page domain of Tom's Hardware, an site of a blog, forums, and short product reviews.
worthplaying.com General software site. Interview with all company info provided by FatShark staff.
Shack News a short product review by Alice O'Connor based on a product release announcement by FatShark
IncGamers Software review/blog a short product review by Peter Parrish based on a product release announcement by FatShark.

Notability for inclusion is not based on a number of sources. It is asserted by the quality, coverage, content, and reliability of the sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Notability established based on sources in the article. Tinton5 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please consider describing how each of the above sources meet Knowledge's WP:RS, and can be applied to WP:ORG in order to assert WP:N? Please also explain how you interpret the WP:BITE guidelines. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the user-edited wiki, Giant Bomb also has a news article from a staff member. Reach Out to the Truth 04:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris Davenport

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

Skier of dubious notability (per WP:ATHLETE?). Most of the sources look fishy. Article created by single-purpose account User:YMurakami, possibly indicating a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment What is the evidence of "dubious notability"? wp:notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Knowledge or the content of any such article such as fishy sources or the possibility of a COI. Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as professional sportsman, winner of the World Extreme Skiing Championship. Here's a piece from Freeskier on Davenport skiing the Lhotse face of Mt. Everest. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment — Could use some rewriting. See maintenance tags. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete complete lack of independent sources for the claims. If the claims in the running text are backed by WP:RS, ping me on my talk page and I'll reconsider. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione 13:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I think that his winning of a major competition makes him notable. ItsZippy 15:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I see enough evidence in reliable sources that the subject of the article is a big name in the extreme skiing world. (BTW, I don't understand why COI is suspected.) --Lambiam 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep – - Topic is passing WP:GNG, per: ESPN, New York Times and others, , . Northamerica1000 04:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Chris Davenport is not just another skiier, he is one of the most notable of the current generation of ski mountaineers in the world. He was interviewed by the New York Times at great length in 2005. He was the first skiier to ski down all 54 14,000+ foot peaks in the United States in a single year, as described in the Denver Post. Having climbed just five of those peaks myself, I have a small sense of what that accomplishment entails. The Vail Daily described him here as one of a "handful of skiers worldwide who climb Mt. Everest and other Himalayan peaks alpine style, without using supplemental oxygen or hiring porters and guides, and then click into their skis on the world's most dangerous slopes." ESPN reported here on his 2000 foot ski descent of the Lotse Face at 24,000 feet on Mount Everest in early May, 2011, a major accomplishment in both skiing and mountaineering. I would venture to say that 99.99% of the skiiers in the world have never skiied at 24,000 feet. The Aspen Times reported here that professional guide Davenport and his team reached the summit of Mount Everest a few weeks later. I have written a few biographies of mountaineers here. Though we have no formal mountaineering notability standards here on Knowledge as yet, I can attest that Chris Davenport is notable in the rarefied and extreme world of ski mountaineering. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Correction The 54 14,000+ foot peaks he skiied were all in Colorado, while the five I climbed were in California, but my respect for his accomplishments remains. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep (changed due to new sources, see above) but remove the Personal Sponsorships section, which is entirely encyclopedic. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the promotional "Personal sponsorships" section, added references, and edited to remove puffery. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep I found it easy to add more references. His movies alone make him notable. I wasn't able to quickly find from the ESPN website that Davenport was a color commentator for ESPN, but there are numerious hits there . Relatedly, IMDB only shows ten films, not twenty. Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete under A7 by User:StephenBuxton. (NAC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 16:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

ENDWORLD

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

No reliable references. silly billy piggy 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BAND - non-notable label, no significant media coverage. Colon el Tom 13:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no real claim of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete - textbook example of a nn group that fails WP:BAND. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no need for discussion, the content is poor and unsourced, and when they indeed publish an album (covered by media) it will not be a problem to restore. Pundit|utter 16:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Slon02 (talk)

Crime against peace

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

This is a classic violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNT. It has been around in this state, and worse, for more than five years, and has always had quesitonable sourcing. Time for it to go away. Jtrainor (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Subject is notable and appears in more than 100,000 books. Content shortcomings are best resolved outside AfD. — C M B J 13:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The article does not appear to consist exclusively of original research. James500 (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. This one looks like a good candidate for WP:SOFIXIT. Why not just zap the OR and SYNTH sections? EricSerge (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. There is no doubt that the article is in poor shape, but if you have a look around our international law articles you will see that this sadly is not unusual and an article merely being in poor shape is not a criterion for deletion. This topic is clearly a notable topic of academic importance that has not yet found an editor to do it justice.Ajbpearce (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Ajbpearce's 'improvable' and 'mainstream (international) law'. Anarchangel (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick under CSD G11 and G12 (non-admin closure). ItsZippy 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Secure Online Desktop

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

Article was recently G11 a few days ago as advertising. (I don't have access to prior version) This appears to be a cut and paste job, started with tags and everything and was tagged as such by bot. That aside, it does appear to be not notable as only sources I find are by the company or unrelated to the "concept" and exactly zero gnews hits. At the least, WP:NEO and failing notability criteria. At the worst, another G11 speedy delete for spam. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't spam, Secure Online Desktop company implement SOD concept, a virtual computer in Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piergiorgio.venuti (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

'Speedy delete: it's non-notable, it's spam, but more importantly it's a clear copyvio so I've tagged the article as such. andy (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Administrative judgment call here: the topic is notable enough per coverage. This alone should satisfy GNG. This article needs help, clearly. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Game TV

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

'Delete - Non noteable TV show with insignificant viewership Dutyscenee (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. This was a TV Channel not a show. Although substantially a member of the Sky EPG dross channels, I seem to remember it was also carried overnight on mainstream channels such as ITV. The phrase "after a spate of bad press for the call-tv industry" doesn't really do the subject justice. The channel was investigiated by the police for fraud. Although the investigation was later dropped due to "lack of evidence" on which to base charges. There is plenty of coverage of the subject for this reason alone.

It was one of a number of channels that popped up (see also the likes of Quiz Call and ITV Play) that became controversial for seeming to rip people off with all but impossible premium rate phone in games. Other channels were reprimanded by the regulator, Ofcom (e.g. See ITV Play's pretty famous Rawl plugs being something you would find in a woman's hand bag ). Big Game appears (IMO) to have got off a reprimand because the police had seized their recordings and so consequently Ofcom couldn't assess the case (see . Pit-yacker (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference being that Quiz Call and ITV Play appear to have gained significant enough press coverage from the controversy (and some independent of the controversy) to pass the notability guidelines, whereas Big Game TV appears to only be mentioned amongst lists of many. The notability of other channels/shows is irrelevant to establishing the notability of this one. No coverage in it's own right. That it is mentioned amongst others in this way may merit a mention in the relevant section of Quiz channel for example, but no notable standalone coverage should mean no standalone article. Delete. Rubiscous (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete (or merge somewhere?) as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Debbie King

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Being married to a semi-noteable person does not make Debbie King noteable herself. All of her references are about her husband. Dutyscenee (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Passes WP:ENTERTAINER as she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".--Cavarrone (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

These are minor film and TV roles bar one; if those minor roles counts as notability, does that mean actors with minor bit-part roles are famous too, plus IMDB is not a reliable third party sources. Donnie Park (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to her works as TV-presenter, not as actress. I thought it was clear, as I wrote in bold "television shows".--Cavarrone (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats if significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources do exist, she is like every other run of the mill graveyard shift presenter, including those in shopping channels like QVC, people who scrape the bottom barrel of celebritydom presenting like they are high on cocaine with the hope that someday they will achieve fame when they never will, only earn enough money to pay their bills, the tanning booth and more cocaine. Should that fail, they will always seek out a D-lister like what she done with the hope that they can build their fame upon their spouse. The trouble is, I cannot find any significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources in any of her quiz shows, that is because they are always on timeslot where fewer people can be bother to watch at all. Donnie Park (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete ~~or Merge~~ ~~to Quizmania if reliable third party sources does exist - only notable from memory was for presenting that one show, the other existed for one episode (if reliable third party source does exist).~~ No significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources do exist for her quiz shows, why? They are shown on graveyard slot where significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources is pretty much irrelevant. Nobody writes news articles about these shows anyway. Her only saving grace, if TV guides counts as reliable third party source, is recently a school/docusoap for people who can't get into any modelling agency, BINTM or any other scam modeling agency, where gullible parents post their kids to her school in a hope that they will become the next Kate Moss. Not really a bad thing if you are trying to cling on the the bottom barrel of celebritydom. Donnie Park (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was deleted by NuclearWarfare. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Goon boxing

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

This was tagged for CSD:G3, but I don't think it's really a blatant hoax and I don't think there are any other eligible CSD criteria. It just looks like some sort of non-notable activity, with all the references being Youtube or Facebook (and there's canvassing going on on its Facebook page). PROD would almost certainly have been contested, so I think I have to bring it here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - article doesn't even try to establish notability; and it could be a hoax. There are some YouTube videos, a mobile phone app, and a Facebook page. I couldn't find anything more solid than that. Naive web search finds a) actual boxing by humans and b) apps that simulate boxing, with many more of the latter: the search (Google search "goon boxing" minus apps, videos) returns only 89 results (don't believe Google's first estimate). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - ephemeric phenomenon with possible short life-span, possible hoax, but most likely a prank which received some minimal coverage in the new media. If it becomes as popular as planking, we'll have real sources. Pundit|utter 16:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hoax. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Pollyanna Woodward

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

Delete - non-notable - no valid references Dutyscenee (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Only a handful of tabloid lifestyle pieces of no significance. The Gadget Show is high-profile itself but her presence on the team has yet to generate independent impact. Knowing the nature of The Gadget Show I expect that this might be encouraged to change should this AfD be successful! Rubiscous (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. There is a full page spread in a national daily newspaper here It didn't take long to find. She's a TV presenter so there will be more...Szzuk (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Also here . I could go on. The nom appears inexperienced and didn't perform WP:Before. Szzuk (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I could call you inexperienced for thinking that her page on her PR company's website is a reliable independent source. The Daily Star and Express? Sister newspapers. Not independent of each other. What you've listed so far isn't enough so please DO go on if you have more. Rubiscous (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Now now. How about you learn to use GOOGLE before deciding a TV presenter shouldn't have a wikipedia page. Daily Mail Sunday Mercury Gadget Awards FHM Magazine. Szzuk (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Your tone is not helpful. causa sui (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

These daily newspapers are owned by the same company as the television station which runs her television show. This is an incestuous PR-fest, not reliable sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The media is very incestuous, I can only agree. There was a big PR campaign but there are plenty of secondary sources. PR fests work because she's on TV. She also was Miss England. Szzuk (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I notice the claim that she was Miss England is completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is true but I'm not looking for any more refs. I vaguely remember the PR fest - it was "a geek and pretty too". Fairly unique as they go. Szzuk (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve Hyland

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

Delete - no references found - non noteable person Dutyscenee (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete I'm not finding anything in Google News or Books that looks like it might be this guy. No refs, no article, delete. Especially since this is a BLP RadioFan (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 16:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh

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

This was speedied twice (2008, and August this year). Speedy now declined. Has this guy really done something significant? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The in-cites interview and his Google Scholar citation counts (9 articles with over 200 citations published since 2001) seem sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Qwfp (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Qwfp. CSD#A7 was indeed inappropriate: the article makes (very large) claims of notability. So much so, in fact, that CSD#G11 could have been more appropriate... The article needs complete re-writing. Parts of it are wrongly interpreted from the in-cites interview (a "medical diploma" in Germany is not an MD) and the whole thing is written in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic, breathless and overblown way. But the interview, the fact that he published one of the most cited articles in his field, and the other citation data demonstrate clear impact on his field, so this passes WP:PROF#1. --Crusio (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article has been re-written and I have added (rather impressive) citation data, establishing without any doubt that he meets PROF#1. --Crusio (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I remain unconvinced that this chap has made a major impact. It is possible to achieve numerous citations if you're notable within a very small niche area of science. JFW | T@lk 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Actually, getting this many citations in a "small niche area" would be even more impressive. If an area is small, there will be fewer articles published and, hence, fewer citations to go round. --Crusio (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. "Reverse epidimiology" is mentioned in some 1800 papers in Google scholar, and is the primary subject of approximately 60 (that is, the phrase appears in the title of these papers). Kalantar-Zadeh's papers are the top three in citations among the 1800. That, even more than the impressive citation/h-index counts taken out of context, convinces me that he is the world's top expert in a subject of some significance and therefore that he passes WP:PROF#C1. He is also a fellow of four medical societies; I'm not familiar enough with their fellowship requirements to say for sure but it seems likely that he passes WP:PROF#C3 on the basis of some or all of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. My friend and I have worked with the professor, so that we may have conflict of interest. Our other friends had posted this article some 3 years ago, and it survived for over 2 years just until recently I guess, some several months ago when the professor asked us to remove most of the data, so that the version before deletion was not useful any more. This time we have his permission to keep the core information. His work is beyond "Reverse epidemiology", at least in Japan he is also known for bone and minerals and in Google scholar he has close to 10 000 citations. But he agrees that the article should be deleted or kept at the discretion of Knowledge editors. —Jun. Miaym. (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Bhagmati

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

Possibly a hoax. None of the references nor the external link give proper information or contain the word "Bagmati". Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Speedy keep - ...but they contain the word "Bhagmati". — C M B J 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

yes and no. The first two references neither contain the word Bhagmati or Bagmati. The third reference and the external link do in fact contain Bhagmati. Indeed, that makes a hoax unlikely. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

All three references contain Bhagmati, as do all three links. — C M B J 00:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I still can not find the word in the first two references, sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: This book and these news sources 1, 2 contain a few references to Bhagmati which corroborate the facts in the wiki article Veryhuman (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

'Request: speedy close as keep. Although not the best article, definately not a hoax. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Delete. No argument was made to counter the nomination statement and the article was not edited at all during the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Alex Kramer (presenter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - Non noteable presenter. lack of sources Dutyscenee (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. A1 Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Words that you take away e and add ing

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

It might be suitable for wikiversity, but not for WP. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 09:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, if not speedy delete. This might qualify under lack of context (A1). Before I add tags I figure I'll ask to make sure it's the right tag for this. Either way, there's absolutely no encyclopedic value for this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete I don't think it really fits in a speedy category, but perhaps we can deal with it by SNOW--it is hopelessly unencyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to Gerund#Verb_patterns_with_the_gerund which is a similar topic. Warden (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Tokyogirl79. No purpose of dragging this discussion any longer. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cein McGillicuddy

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

Exists, but I can't myself find sufficient RS material to warrant notability under wp standards. Tagged for notability since March 2009, and for being an orphan before that. Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Stockland Corrimal

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

Local and non-notable shopping centre in a surrounding suburb of Wollongong. Shopping centres are usually considered notable if they are super-regional or regional (i.e. gross leasable area of more than 60,000 square metres and containing well over 200 specialty stores, along with supermarkets, discount department stores and department stores). Till I Go Home (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete The centre has been the subject of some news stories, but based on the description in the article, it appears none of these reported expansion plans got off the ground and it remains a small one-story mall. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Decatur Boulevard

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable city arterial roadway. LJ ↗ 06:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ Keep - While not beautiful ~~or the subject of major articles~~, it is one of the Las Vegas metropolitan area's longest arterial main streets. If we were to go by the WP:50k rule, this is easily be one of the 40 street articles per the 2 million population of the Las Vegas Valley area.--Oakshade (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Changed to solid keep per sources found below. --Oakshade (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Merely existing does not provide noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - There is a transportation route on this road. Also why single this road out??? If Decatur Blvd is removed then why not Jones Boulevard or any other north-south arterial roads??? If anything there should of been improvements such as references made in the article since its been around for a while.Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: There are bus routes on many other roads and arterials in the Las Vegas area...not all those streets have articles and that shouldn't be an argument to keep this. A few named arterial roads in the area, such as Las Vegas Boulevard and Fremont Street, are notable because of the hotel/casino districts established on them which have helped shaped the industry and character of Las Vegas. Other named street articles in the Las Vegas area, such as Jones Boulevard, were moved to those names from articles on Nevada state highways (which shouldn't have happened, IMO) and never fully revised to detail more than the state highway portion of the road. Decatur Blvd does not have these aspects of notability going for it, which is why I nominated it here. If references can be added that shows something interesting about this thoroughfare that sets it apart from the many other long arterials, such as Durango Drive or Pecos Road, then that's fine. -- LJ ↗ 10:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Never mind its length, has it been covered by sources? I only checked the first ten pages of its 1600+ GNews hits, but I'm pretty well convinced that this is probably a notable road. This source provides in-depth coverage about the street's history, these two are borderline significant coverage and this isn't bad either. WP:GNG would seem to be met to me. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
If kept, REname to "Decatur Boulevard, Las Vegas". I cannot believe that it is the only street of this name in the world, even if the rest are far less significnat. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is that really necessary? Such disambiguation would surely be necessary only if this wasn't the primary topic, which it clearly is - this seems to be its only rival. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Nothing special about this road. Dough 48 72 01:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While that's an interesting opinion, do you have any reason to counter the above arguments that it's one of the main routes of the Las Vegas Metropolitan area and that it passes our guidelines like WP:GNG? --Oakshade (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Secret Pickle

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

This article has an obvious wp:coi problem. I am not sure how the supper club is notable. It does not claim to be the first such organization but makes vague and unverified peacock claims including "one of the top" and "along with a handful of others". The external links are local reviews of the restaurant - some of which do not appear to be independent. Reviews by themselves do not make for notability. Porturology (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I did a search and the results I found are considered trivial sources at best. I found nothing that establishes the notability of this club. There's nothing to show that this is any more or any less notable than the thousands of other similar clubs throughout the world. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Closed and refiled at Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 19#Don Bartolo.

Don Bartolo

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

Redirects to article that does not have a single mention of "Don", "Bartolo" or "Don Bartolo" in it. Implausible redirect. Srobak (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. He's in List of True Blood characters, but has only appeared in only three episodes thus far. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Close- As wrong venue. Refile at Knowledge:Redirects for discussion if desired. Dru of Id (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was deleted by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) as a copyvio (G12) of http://ahmed-elseyoufi.at.ua/index/english_site/0-11. Goodvac (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed elSeyoufi

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

Seems to be non-notable, although as always with non-western names, it may be a spelling problem. I've tried a few, though, and can't find anything. The links at the bottom which purport to lead to sources about this guy are actually about Carlos Slim instead. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

comment—And then there is this, which seems to be the source of the picture, or something weird, anyway. And the article on arabic wikipedia for good measure, created at same time by same user. Also contested prod, I forgot to mention.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Not that it has any bearing on this deletion discussion, but the Egyptian language version has been deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Good find on that image. The article is close to incomprehensible. Given the image is not what is claimed, its not surprising other things don;t make sense. All the references are for Carlos Slim who is assuredly not Egyptian. The infobox claims he is president of Toronto Petroleum. Assuming this company is the one being referred to, then the president is Mohammed H. Al Mana. There is a claim that he was one of the richest people in Canada in 2010 but he doesn't appear in this top 100 richest people in Canada for 2010. And really, why would he be one of the richest people in Canada? I also cannot find any evidence he is in any position of power with the current military regime in Egypt. Nothing checks out. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Half is obvious copy of Carlos Slim article. Other half unsourced mess that doesn't check out. Very probably a hoax.--Escape Orbit 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment—I just nominated it as a speedy g12 because of this. We'll see what happens, I suppose.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Are you sure that somebody didn't just set up that web site and copy the Knowledge content? -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  - The thought certainly crossed my mind, but I don't see how it matters if the site's not explicitly a wikipedia mirror. The website has no license on it, so it seems that prudence dictates that we treat it as a copyright violation unless that fact changes. If this is the wrong way to go about it, I suppose that the speedy will be declined.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. The keep votes providing examples of significant coverage have not been refuted and ~10 refs have been added to the article so 'unsourced BLP' concern has been addressed. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Darina Allen

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

Non-notable minor TV chef BLP; almost totally unsourced. Orange Mike | Talk 02:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete – She seems to be a familiar name in Ireland, but I'm having trouble finding substantial coverage by multiple WP:RS. For example, less than substantial coverage indicates she's regarded as something on the order of "Julia Child" or "Martha Stewart" in Ireland. I've found Reclaiming Ireland’s Culinary Heritage, One Roast Lamb or Sponge Cake at a Time (NY Times) and Author gives taste of Irish tradition (Seattle Times). There seems to be greater coverage of her husband (in which she is of course mentioned), but the most general notability seems to rest with the cooking school. I'm open to changing my vote, but I can't say she passes WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 05:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Surely she is notable enough having written several cooking books , been reported on though not extensively and running the Ballymaloe Cookery School. ww2censor (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Seems to me to be a highly noted Irish celebrity chef. Eg The Observer introduces her as Chef, writer, TV presenter and Irish foodie legend Darina Allen. The Limerick Post refers to her as one Ireland’s most "celebrated chefs". The University Observer: Pasteurise and Fall 12 November 2011 Has the line The group, which call themselves CRMI (Campaign for Raw Milk in Ireland) include acclaimed figures in traditional Irish cooking such as Darina Allen and Neven Maguire, and formidable food critics including Paulo Tulio. And The Good Food Channel describes her thus: Darina Allen owns and runs the internationally renowned Ballymaloe Cookery School in Ireland....is a bestselling author on Irish farmhouse cuisine and a leader of the slow food movement in Ireland.... She ... has presented nine series of her cookery programme "Simply Delicious" on television in Ireland. These seem supportive of the idea that she is notable enough for us. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)) 10:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

PS- Ihave added some of these refs to the article which was longer before having been stubified due to lack of referencing prior to this Afd. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

PPS Also added Maeve Binchy's review of Allen's notable book. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

Keep: Sources are there.--Larp30 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Allen exceeds the requirements of WP:BIO, as evidenced by the following sources—"Ireland Cooking Teacher Darina Allen Makes Nettle Soup" from Newsday, "Naturally OIrish New book explores County Cork cooking" from The Providence Journal, "Author and teacher is the 'Julia Child of Ireland'" from Times-Standard, "Author gives taste of Irish tradition" from The Seattle Times, "Real Food Pioneer: Darina Allen" and "Little Chef" from The Times, "Time honored food from Ireland's best, Darina Allen" from Irish Voice, "Sharing a love of Irish food" from St. Petersburg Times, "Noted Irish cook hailed for improving Eire fare" from The Boston Globe, and "Reclaiming Ireland’s Culinary Heritage, One Roast Lamb or Sponge Cake at a Time" from The New York Times (full-length article mostly about Allen). Goodvac (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. –MuZemike 17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Decode-Encode Language

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

While many of the 6000 RFCs are notable (and indeed used as the basis of systems like wikipedia), I can find no evidence that this particular RFC is notable. The name isn't conducive to googling, so I'd encourage other's to have a crack too. The fact that the internet version of the RFC appears to contain OCR errors that appear to have gone unnoticed is also telling. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Weak Delete The OCR errors are because it was written in 1969, before the days anyone thought of putting documents on a computer (they were way too expensive back then).That makes it quite historical; way ahead of its time like much else in the Englebart SRI lab which developed early Arpanet applications. But it is already mentioned in Rulifson's article. RFC 2555 does mention it on its 30th anniversary. In some ways it had a similar function to the original purpose of the NeWS window system, ActiveX, and the Java programming language which runs on billions of devices today. It should be mentioned probably in those aritcles too, much of the computer networking history on Knowledge starts in the 1990s and ignores the previous 30 years. But probably does not need one of its own, especially one that does not give historic context. I do not think it was ever implemented, for example. W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Newby's

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

No proclamation as to why it's notable, plus no references. If someone can tell me why this belongs on Knowledge I'm all ears. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete – Fails every word of WP:GNG: no substantial third-party coverage by multiple reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 02:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Au contraire, here are two . That, plus the described lawsuit in federal court, makes it notable. Keep Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- The second link is the University of Memphis school newspaper. I can dig up a million articles about "local hot spots" on or near any college campus in America if they have a school newspaper. The first link, while more trustworthy and less COI, is reporting on why the place is being sued. It's routine coverage; lawsuits =/= automatic notability, otherwise a lot of the jerks I went to high school with would have Knowledge articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep - I think the reliably sourced lawsuit with BMI, coupled with the number of events here, may be a weak case for notability. However, I have to point out that the article was written as an advert. --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Week Keep - Meeting GNG, per Memphis Daily News, Fox News Memphis. Northamerica1000 09:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Google news archive search for their name plus "Memphis" shows results Glide Magazine reviews them. Dream Focus 21:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete under G3 by User:Martijn Hoekstra. (NAC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lightning viper

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

Likely hoax Grahame (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete as hoax. SPA invents a species of snake that "is often found in in Antarctica Ireland" (both places where snakes are notably thin on the ground), where the "biggest killer of this snake is drowning", and illustrates it with a nice, juicy picture of a real but unrelated rattlesnake. Ghits are unrelated. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete The Joker strikes again. Borock (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete, obvious bovine digestive byproducts, and block User:Aussiebob123 for vandalism. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete. There's no note of this on the internet apart from this webpage. Obvious hoax. I'll tag it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

The result was delete. –MuZemike 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Barry Bunin

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

I'm having a hard time find anything substantive about this fellow that would satisfy WP:N. Google (including News) turns up a lot of stuff he's said and a lot of stuff about his company, but little else. Google Scholar shows some papers on which he was a junior author as a grad student, but he's not an academic and doesn't qualify under WP:ACADEMIC anyway. (Note that there's an academic named Barry J. Bunin who's a different person.) The creator of this article also made one about Bunin's company Collaborative Drug Discovery, and that company, not Bunin himself, seems to be where (if anywhere) the notability resides. Deor (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. All though the arguments for deletion are very weak, because expecting for find relevant sources for arabic books about Islam on the net available to us is not reasonable, still we cannot keep thiswithout some kind of better source. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Mazhar Baqa

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

While this academic certainly exists, I don't think from what I can see that he quite meets our notability standards for academics. Others are encouraged to find more sources than I was able to find. Tagged by another editor for notability since March 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Associate Professor and no apparent coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete – Added Urdu. Hits indicate the same lack of third-party coverage in print. This subject appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC/WP:AUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 02:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Per above. Lack of third party coverage to establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability of GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweight the arugment for retention here; nothing has come forward to rebut the article's lack of notability via sourcing. –MuZemike 17:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Greek Women's Engineering Association

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

Delete. Non-notable organisation. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You are right. Article missed external references. I added more references (sites of european organizations Greek Women's Engineering Assotiations belongs: European Platform of Women Scientists- EPWS, Women in Science, Engineering & Technology-WiTEC, European Federation of Mentoring for girls & Women -WOMENTOR). I got inspired to create this article because I read the wikipedia article abour Royal Institute of British Architects and as President of the Greek Women's Association I though that was a good idea to create an article for our association too. Our Association is not settled in UK and our members are Greek women engineers but someone may search for us and our actions via wikipedia.Please note down that there is no wikipedia in Greek (it is in primary level). So pleae reconsider your decision to delete this article. BettyRouni (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC). I have copied the above text from the talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I have expanded the article and tidied up the references. Biscuittin (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete – Does not pass WP:GNG (substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources), let alone WP:ORG/WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is not likely to be "substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources" (in English) about a Greek association. I'd have thought some flexibility could be shown in this case. Biscuittin (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be in English, nor even online - they just have to exist, and be verifiable, if need be by getting someone to drop into the library in Athens.Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Even after two relistings, no other arguments supporting deletion have come forward. –MuZemike 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gillette Cup New Zealand Secondary Schools Cricket

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

Non-notable cricket tournament. It doesn't have historical significance having only been set up in 1990, besides which it is only schools cricket. A search for reliable sources doesn't seem to bring up much. Overall I think it fails WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. This search might well be fruitful, but I don't have the time at the moment to check through the results. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep On the following basis:

these articles about celebrating the cup's 20th anniversary.
Quotes directly about the notability of Gillette Cup such as, "More than 60 players who have made the finals (at the Gillette Cup) have gone on to play first-class cricket, with 14 eventually playing for the Black Caps." or, "The Gillette Cup provides so much opportunity for schools to be involved.", or that teams as referred to as "Gillette Cup Holders".

All of these findings seem to suggest that winning the cup is a high honor for , not just a local award. Thanks to Phil Bridger for providing that search. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a significant national tournament (as above), equivalent to the Maadi Cup. Information is here http://www.blackcaps.co.nz/content/grassroots/tournaments/gillette-cup/gillette-cup-history.aspx if verification is a concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.195.100 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (natter) 11:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Alicia Menendez

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria Arbor8 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy Keep - She is a frequent guest on Fox news and others (easy to find video on this), making her a bit of an accepted expert/advocate on political topics. The article needs work, but that is an issue for the talk page, not AFD. A little poking around just using the links provided in the AFD brings up interesting things without too much to filter through. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Lots of Ghits from notable sources. Yes, young and a senator's daughter, so one is naturally mindful of ephemera, but notability seems genuine. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. With two 'week keeps' from established editors, I can only view this as no consensus, given the view in Spartaz's nom Wifione 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

PunBB

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was deleted following an earlier AFD but some sourcing was adduced at a deletion review at Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_26. The consensus was to relist this for discussion in the context of those sources. As I am listing this in my capacity as the DRV closer I take no position on the outcome of this discussion. Spartaz 06:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources mentioned were and . Spartaz 06:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

weak keep I think the listing admin missed one: . (It is behind a paywall, but I have access). It is a moderate source that uses PunBB as a standard workload. That doesn't mean a whole lot, but it does mean that the authors expected others to accept this as a common bit of software. There are a number of others academic papers that do something similar. I'm not sure how much that should count for. But I think when combined with things like and perhaps (in German, don't know if is a RS) and the like, we've got enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep on the basis from the first reference found above, several mentions in books that call the subject one of the "most popular" forum implementation tools, and the reference found by Hobit, which I will assume good faith on because I can't access it myself. I would have liked to have seen a little more in-depth coverage of it, though. Many books only give it a passing mention. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We have articles on http://www.forum-software.org/punbb/review site. its major site about all forum engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimkalinux (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Alf Laylay's comments accept that "notability as a director" can't be ascertained. If this were a non-BLP, my view might have been different. At this time, I'm deleting the article taking into account DGG and Clarity's views. Wifione 04:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Nikolai Keith

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

There is a Harvey Keith who is the director of Mondo New York, a minor cult film, and the two even lesser films listed in the article. I can find no reliable evidence for the middle name, so I am not sure he is the same person. There is such a novel as The Eagle and the Sword,, but it was was written by another person entirely , A. A. Attanasio a well known prize winning SF author. There is such a novel as The Tsar's Engraver; is published by what appears to be a vanity publisher, Firefall Media-- none of the books published under that imprint is in more than 6 libraries--most are not even in worldcat. This book, though published in 2010, is in only one library according to worldcat . I have been unable to verify most of what is in the IMdB biography.

If Keith is notable as a director, then the article should be rewritten from scratch to remove the unverifiable information, including the unverifiable middle name. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

comment—i can't speak to his notability as a director yet if ever, but fwiw the middle name seems to be real, and it does seem to be the same person. here is harvey keith's entry in the directors guild of america registry, which has a link to the guy's official website (warning: super-irritating and loud multimedia) which does list the guy's middle name as nikolai (in the bio, which i can't link straight to), and is probably good for at least that info per WP:SELFPUB.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The vanity press reference and his IMDb bio say his The Eagle and the Sword was a Hugo Award nominee, but I can't find anything that confirms it. Only one or two directing credits of any significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)