Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 27

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 19 (Thu) September 18 (Wed) September 17 (Tue) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern.Not-Sorted

< 26 November	28 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 keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

English Civil War Society

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

Contested PROD. When I saw this article, I thought that it should meet the notability criteria, but I can't find significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. All the coverage I could find is minor mentions. The editor who contested the PROD contended that "minor mentions" are better than none - however, the notability criteria specifically requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, which this article does not meet. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

keep This is a bizarre AfD, to nominate what's probably the single most prominent of the UK's re-enactment groups. You'll be nominating the Sealed Knot next -- Oh look! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This society is documented in detail in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
KeepI found books, what more do you want? Ridiculous.J3Mrs (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The first two citations would appear to be about re-enactment societies in general, not the ECWS in particular - although I will concede that I have not had the chance to obtain copies of them (it's currently 05:00 in the UK, the libraries I have access to are shut!). I am willing to alter this assessment if someone would provide the precise quotes from the two book here to show that there is significant coverage of the ECWS in those two sources. The other three are all on the organisation's own website, and so not independent sources. For such an esteemed/important group, I'd expect there to be lots of press coverage of them, with information about their history etc. It was founded in 1980, so they have been active during the Internet era, so where are the sources? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep ridiculous idea to delete this page! why the need to? Instead of putting them up for deleting why not try improve them first! JMRH6 (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Although it is a relatively new society, there are significant references to be found such as , , , etc. This, although just a footnote, suggests that there was a full article about the group in the New Statesman. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 23:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

AthletePromotions

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

Non-notable PR from lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as spam. The article is relentlessly promotional and much of it is about Ryan Totka's other ventures and not about AthletePromotions. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete This booking agency does not appear to be notable. It's possible that an article about its founder, Ryan Totka, might pass muster as notable , but this agency does not have the required significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 23:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gemma Massey

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

Appears to fail both GNG & PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as failing PORNBIO. The artcle's asserted one award for 2012 fails the SNG, and the BBC video clip where she speaks about herself fails the GNG's requirement for multiple RS significant coverage. Schmidt, 03:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy. Actually fails the minimum required to stay in WP.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Fails GNG and PORNBIO.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sealed Knot (reenactment)

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

Contested PROD. Even though I thought that this should meet the notability criteria (it's an organisation that I have heard of), I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Despite the claims of the editor who contested the PROD, this is not a "ludicrous" nomination - I have looked but was unable to find significant coverage at multiple reliable independent sources, and at the moment the references in the article are the organisation's own website (so not independent) and the other is not indepth coverage of the organisation - and in any case, is not 'multiple sources'. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

keep (see other bulk AfDs by this editor). The Sealed Knot pretty much established re-enactment in the UK, something like 40 years ago. Although there are now many other groups too (and this editor has PRODed or AfDed most of them today) the Sealed Knot are still the best known by name. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep As the nominator says, this is a well-known organisation. I've added a reference to the article itself from a book with a sub-chapter entitled "Combat re-enactment: WARS and The Sealed Knot". And if one looks to a search on say The Guardian, one can see from the returns the extent to which Sealed Knot is a matter of common reference. AllyD (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is indeed a ludicrous nomination as the topic is covered in detail in numerous sources such as Costume: the journal of the Costume Society, Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture, Re-creations: visualizing our past, Heritage: management, interpretation, identity, &c. Warden (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Ridiculous , far more notable than many other articles on wikipedia.J3Mrs (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Definately Keep, I agree with all of the above! the person that nominated it obviously has nothing else better to do! I have given the page a small revamp to try and improve it... there is no reason to delete a page like this! JMRH6 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
keep I am in the SCA and need to know of other reenactment groups around the world. Is Knowledge (XXG) running out of space? Septagram (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Very notable - probably the single best-known organisation of this type in the UK.--Michig (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Very well known. Due to age, may be better covered in print/tv/radio than on online sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep There are significant references to be found such as , , , etc. Also what appears to be a major item from the Economist The economist: Volume 363, Issues 8267-8270; Volume 363, Issues 8267-8270 whose link was not valid. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. m.o.p 23:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Byrne

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

Subject appears to fail both GNG & PORNBIO. Can't find significant third party coverage and she appears to only have been nominated for awards and never winning any. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Got a brief flutter of notice for making a Jennifer Lopez take-off porno. Other than that, stray mentions, PR, & sales sites. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Passes PORNBIO with multiple years of AVN nominations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Dismas| 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#2 as WP:ANYBIO#1. Long series of XRCO & AVN noms includig noms in two significant categories like "Best New Starlet" and "Performer of the Year".--Cavarrone (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Fails GNG and PORNBIO.--Cox wasan (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you haven't read PORNBIO.--Cavarrone (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Whatever I personally think of the pornbio standards, they have the support of the community, and the article clearly meets them. Anyone nominating or supporting deletion for this has clearly not read them; some basic knowledge needs to be seen as a prerequisite to making intelligent comments here, otherwise AfD becomes I like it/ I don't like it. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply. I cannot speak on behalf of anyone else, but I did read the pornbio standards, before voting to delete. I've also read the introductory bit at the top of the WP:BIO page where it says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I looked at the evidence offered in the article and from my own searches and concluded that, on balance, this subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia entry. For what it's worth, I do believe that there are plenty of porn stars who do belong in WP. This person is not one of them. If my vote and comments are not merely disagreeable to you, but also unintelligent, well, I do apologize. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think DGG was mainly referring to Cox wasan and to the nom. It is legitimate to think that a subject isn't sufficiently notable to be in WP, despite like in this case he/she passes SNG-criteria and has some (sporadic) secondary coverage. I consider that as WP:IDONTLIKE, but your comment correctly explained this POV. It is "unintelligent" saying, as the nom says, that a subject fails pornbio as "she appears to only have been nominated for awards and never winning any", it demonstrate he has not read PORNBIO. And it is even more "unintelligent", after three users noticed how the subject effectively passes this SNG, saying "Fails GNG and PORNBIO" without any reason, explanation or comment given.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, I apologize for my wording, because I was chiefly thinking on the nom. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep Satisfies WP:PORNBIO. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Regia Anglorum

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

Contested PROD. This organisation does not seem to meet the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The coverage in the New Statesman referred to in the article (which I had high hopes for when I saw it on the references list) does not even name the group, merely discussing a group of beardy-weirdy Anglo-Saxon nuts, which is presumably referring to this group?

The editor who contested the PROD said in the edit summary that the prod appears to be solely on the basis of the editor's dislike of "beardy weirdies". One would think that when re-enactment culminates in building an entire village and a fleet of ships, it is notable - to which I would like to make two comments:

I didn't use the phrase about "beardy weirdies" - the New Statesmen did. That is their reporter's thoughts, not my own. Again, the group is not named, so how can we verify that this organisation is that group?
If significant coverage of the group, including building a village and shops, can be found at reliable sources which are independent of the group, I would not have nominated this for deletion - however, I couldn't find any, and the New Statesman article is not sufficient for that purpose, as although it is reliable and independent, it does not name the group.

As such, I do not see that they meet the notability criteria, which requires verifiability and sourcing. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep and admonish or block editor for WP:POINT.

This is one of a series of scatter-gun PRODs by this editor against UK-based historical re-enactment groups. A prod that describes the article subject as "beardy weirdies", even when choosing which cite to quote, is rarely the sign of a balanced judgement of notability. Whilst not claiming that all are notable, I'm particularly concerned by the editor's total disregard for both WP:BEFORE and for the workload of other editors. When they can use phrases like, "though I thought that this should meet the notability criteria (it's an organisation that I have heard of), I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject." then they show an utter lack of respect for other editors. Who do they think adds such references? The reference pixies? No, it's other editors who they've now cheerfully dumped this extra and immediate workload onto, and a small group of specialist interest editors who've now been told to expand refs on _every_ article at once or see them deleted. This editor has even nom'ed The Sealed Knot for AfD, a group that has not only been around for about 40 years, but pretty much established mass re-enactment in the UK. Of course any editor is entitled to nominate articles for deletion, or to point out their lack of references (although to do this whilst quoting the New Statesman's own references is chutzpah!). Yet doing this en masse, with such disregard for bothering to do any of the incumbent legwork themself, is not the action of an editor who believes in collegiate editing, or who has an evident interest in improving the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

a) assume good faith b) once I saw that this had been prodded, I went on a internet trawl for news articles on the group - expecting it would be the quickest way to source the groups existence and high profile - I found one. I found lots of renactment websites referring to it but they didn't strike me as independent or reliable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you were just looking in the current news, not the archives. See the news link above for The historical reenactor in The Guardian, for example. Warden (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"AGF is not a suicide pact" These prods & AfDs represent sheer laziness on the part of the nominator - particularly an acceptance that they're probably a bad nom, but that the nominator is still happy to deliberately ignore WP:BEFORE in favour of dumping that workload onto others. AfD isn't saying that the refs need improvement, it's claiming that there is no adequate coverage of a topic whatsoever. I don't believe the nominator believes this, so why are they even raising it here, if not to strong-arm other editors into having to do immediate cleanup work, or lose articles? That is not a GF action.

As to the notability of Regia, then they're pretty much the "go to guys" for rent-a-viking on UK TV for the last few years. If you see a beardy weirdie with a seax, or a longboat, chances are that they're Regia people. Coast has certainly used them, I think Time Team too. They're even covered in the pages of Stationary Engine Magazine. If you don't like older sources, here's one from the Grauniad just a couple of months ago . Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This deletion spree has not been made in accordance with our deletion policy. It is trivially easy to find sources for these topics such as this. Warden (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, certainly notable, although sourcing should be improved. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of news coverage ; I added another Guardian reference to the article. I'm amazed how much this group does; no wonder they get so much coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. m.o.p 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Eames: the architect and the painter

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

Recent documentary film. No attempt made to show notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment I wrote a short squib less than 24 hours, and have seen it PRODed twice in that time, second time by the nominator. I don't know if the number of Google hits speaks to likely notability, but I get over a million. (though I don't know how to avoid repetition.) It is possible that this article needs a better author rather than deletion. I'm not arguing for a keep, but for the subject to be considered before a decision is made to delete. Jd2718 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Reviews in the New York Times, Seattle Times, Hollywood Reporter and a gazillion other places make this a no-brainer. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep as User:Clarityfiend has easily established that this film meets notability criteria. I sympathyze with its author User:Jd2718 and suggest that in the future he consider beginning articles in a user workspace and so avoid them being negatively evaluated when in their infant stages. Had it looked as it does now I seriously doubt that User:Jsfouche or User:RHaworth would have suggested its removal. Kudos to Clarityfiend for his improvments. Well done. I suggest that now that concerns have been addressed, the nom consider a withdrawal of his nomination. Schmidt, 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - seems to meet WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable sources which were not evident when the article was created (even though it may not meet WP:NFILM). I also suggest the author submit at Articles for Creation as we give feedback there before the article is posted on the mainspace and subject to deletion criteria. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Don't know what the article looked like when nominated, but looks solidly sourced now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, since it's obviously notable, and a trout-slap for RHaworth. Before nominating an article for deletion, you're supposed to research its notability yourself, per WP:BEFORE. Doing so in this case would've saved everybody a lot of time and bother. -Hit bull, win steak 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jayjg 02:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Peut-Être Magazine

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

Prod disputed by article creator. Prod reason was "No indication that this new publication has achieved any verifiable notability." which remains the case, hence bringing it to AfD. AllyD (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. New French fashion photo mag. 2 issues thus far. Some blog notice, but nothing WP:RS that I can see. Fails WP:N. If substantial WP:RS can be found, happy to have another look, but otherwise, just looks WP:TOOSOON. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. m.o.p 23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Response ZT

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep – Passes WP:GNG:
Hanley, Reid (May 26, 1986). "New Putter Revives Sales At Macgregor". The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Jack Is Back, Thanks to His New Big Blade". People Magazine. July 14, 1986. pp. Vol. 26, No. 2. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Johnson, Michael E. (April 11, 2011). "Designer Long Had The Last Laugh When Jack Won With 'Joke' Putter". Golf Digest. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
(Golfweek Staff) (April 1, 2006). "Golfweek writers recall Nicklaus at '86 Masters". Golf Week Magazine. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Reilly, Rick (April 6, 2011). "Come on, Jackson!". ESPN. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"2006: Masters Golden Day". Golf Week Magazine. June 28, 2006. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 11:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep 300,000 people bought it. Did those seeking to delete this bother to check Google News Archive? It gets ample coverage. Dream Focus 16:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Alan is just trying to delete notable golf clubs. CallawayRox (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete by Fastily as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.rkmarble.com/company.html. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ashok Patni

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

Article about a living person that does not have any independent, published sources. Clearly fails WP:BLP and the claim to notability is thin, so fails WP:BIO too. Prod was contested under the claim of adding references, but these just repeated the existing unreliable sources - they are unreliable as they are clearly not independent of the subject. Sparthorse (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and tagged as such. Article is a paste-up of , , and . -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 23:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Emc X

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Although the article says he's "unknown", some websites identify him by name. However, I couldn't find anything in any secondary sources that establish even one of the criterion in MUSICBIO. The article is a complete and unsourced mess, too, but I'm sure many editors will tell me that's irrelevant. Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 23:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Last Jazz Musician

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

PROD contested by author … lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:MOVIE or WP:GNG … links to IMDb are not sufficient. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn. reddogsix (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Kikoriki the Movie

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

Non-notable movie lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Admittedly, the references in the article are in Russian and I have no Russian skills. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Significant coverage in the Russian-language media exists . Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - This is a big kid's thing in Russia. If something of equal stature in the English-speaking world had a page, it would be an obvious keep (though in that case we'd be dealing with fancruft "Lists of minor characters" etc.) ). PhnomPencil 20:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Based on comments by Alessandra Napolitano and PhnomPencil and sources I'll withdraw my nomination. reddogsix (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 04:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Markland Medieval Mercenary Militia

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

I feel that although on the fact of it this should meet the notability criteria, I don't think it quite meets the criteria. The coverage (although in multiple sources) appear to be individually minor, with a few bits of information about the organisation rather than the indepth coverage we normally look for. However, I feel that this deletion would be potentially controversial, hence bring to AfD rather than PRODing it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Enough coverage in sufficiently numerous RS to attain significance when considered in its totality. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Leaning towards Delete since the coverage seems sparse eg The National Public Radio piece is about the Vikings not about the Militia itself. On a side note, there seems to be notability concerns about Regia Anglorum the British group of Anglo-Saxon/early medieval re-enactment organisation (its been prodded) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Covered in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete promotional article, and rather borderline sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete the sources look trivial at best for the most part. It looks like there is only twoish good sources --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Vikings! Of Middle England

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

I do not think this quite meets the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject apart from that provided in the article, most of which would not meet the requirement for significant coverage. The BBC reference might meet that, but I feel that there is not quite enough coverage to meet the 'significant coverage at multiple sources' requirements. I feel that this is possibly going to be controversial, hence going to AfD rather than PRODing PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Cites coverage reliable news sources which is significant in its totality. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep I do not think this quite meets the pre-requisites of our deletion policy being part of a drive-by deletion spree made with inadequate research and discussion. Warden (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep I am the primary contributor to the article. This article has ben reworked to include more references to reliable third party sources, and i'm working on obtaining the exact references for event critique in the UK national re-enactment magazine 'Skirmish.' Previous to these additions I felt that the page was sufficiently referenced, and far more than many other pages on Knowledge (XXG). The group is at lease notable enough that a guardian journalist directly referenced them over ten years ago when they were arguably less well know. Blaene —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Muckross Stream

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

notability not established. No claim of notability made. 78.26 (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. No RS; essentially all original research. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Non notable watercourse, unsourced, unreliable, probable OR. Snappy (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: I lived virtually on top of this for the best part of 40 years and never heard about it. No reliable sources have yet been found. ww2censor (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Up Until Now

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

Can't find any reliable sources or reviews. Seems a non notable album. The initial creator seems to be the artists (at least by guessing this of the username) and thus only using Knowledge (XXG) for advertising. The corresponding album cover also might have a copyright problem... mabdul 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this album in reliable sources; it does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow 18:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was procedurally closed unexplained nomination. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

William 'Bill' Corbett

AfDs for this article:

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

Reason Billdup (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 27. Snotbot t • c » 16:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep and close as the nominator has failed to give any rationale for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the Difference?

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What's the Difference?

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

No independent sources and no evidence of significance. Basileias (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Reliable sources would have been the difference. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is certainly notable; this book isn't. St Anselm (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - unreferenced book article with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 23:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Manahan

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Most references are blogs or non-notable websites. No significant coverage found in GHits or GNews. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: if this article is deleted, the album Commence should also be deleted as it is not inherently notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 16:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not coming up with any significant coverage for this band in reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow 19:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was see talk page. 山本一郎 (会話)

Andrew Chan

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

Knowledge (XXG):ONEEVENT applies. Bali Nine covers the event as well as the gang. No member of Bali Nine has a claim to notability, other than event/member of gang. Redtigerxyz 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominating other members:

Si Yi Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Czugaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renae Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scott Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martin Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Myuran Sukumaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redtigerxyz 16:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep for all - This is one of the most covered and talked about criminals in Australian crime history. They all should have individual articles. They all passes WP:PERP.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:PERP says "A person who is notable only for ... committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Knowledge (XXG) article if there are any existing articles (in this case Bali Nine) that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person."--Redtigerxyz 16:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep. There are hundreds of - if not more - reliable sources at this point. These articles provide some of the best coverage around of a particularly significant and complex case, due to an enormous amount of work; work and coverage that would be lost should they be merged. I think it's a bit of a dick move to nominate nine Good Articles for deletion citing all of one shortcut as justification. Rebecca (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep all - Merging the articles would make Bali Nine (48 kB) an unwieldy size; these articles are a justified WP:SIZESPLIT and have no significant verifiability issues. Dl2000 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect all. I do not believe that the size of the main article would be unwieldy if the unique details of each individual were merged. As is, there is a large amount of duplicate information in each of the articles about the individuals. For example, the section entitled "Criticisms of Australian Federal Police tipoff" does not need to be duplicated in every article nor do the quotes in the "Sentencing and appeal" section. These things bloat the articles and give the impression that there is more to say about the individuals than there really is. Location (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep all Coverage in RS is plentiful, to the extent of establishing individual notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete all. WP:PERP applies and the exclusions listed in it do not. This is a one event and the individual criminals are not notable in themselves. QU 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep all. There has been a massive amount of attention given to these people in the press, not just about their crime, but about all the appeals and their life in the Bali prison. They are not "notable only for ... committing a crime or crimes" They clearly meet the notability guidelines. Each article is quite large and quite well written. Is wikipedia improved by deleting them at this time? No. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep all per Dl2000 and Bduke. The deletion or merging of these article would be a negative for the encyclopedia – either the Bali Nine article would become far too bloated or we would lose useful information (as has been noted above, all articles are well sourced and well written and they are all either GAs or at GAN). Jenks24 (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep all I am a significant contirbutor to articles on each of the Bali Nine and on that page itself. I have done a fair amount of ref sourcing and nominated them for GA/GAN. I don't hold a bias and am interested in the outcome, whatever is decided. I started contributing in mid-2011 following the dismissal of Chan's appeal against his sentence. My contributions were based on a number of key issues:

The aritcles as they stand now were not as they stood in mid-June 2011, for example, Rush and Lawrence were full of content, garnered in part through their media exposure and the approach/profile of thier family. This compared with Czugaj and Chen who had only a few lines written about them each.
Chan had much content than Sukumaran. I started to ask myself why.
Some artcles had details of their past criminal backgrounds, others not. I adopted an approach that this was pertinent information, whilst in the public domain and should apply to all, and not just one or two.
There were differences to each case, their motivations for being involved, how they conducted themselves during the arrest and criminal proceedings, and following sentencing. I felt that these nuances would be lost in the main article.
I tried to ensure that the individual articles were written from the persepctive of that individual, and not the collective. This includes the quotes relating to sentencing that are taken from the perspective of the individual being sentenced, or their family.
As to the claim for Knowledge (XXG):ONEEVENT, how do we manage Chan and Lawrence's reported activities in October and December 2004? These activities are only partially covered in the main article becuase they have minimal relevance, but are covered in more detail in the individual artitcles.
A similiar theme is also adopted for the allegedly threatening behaviours of Sukumaran and Chan to some members of the Nine. This is best covered in the individual articles where it is relevant to the individual. Jherschel (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep all ONEEVENT explains that if an event is significant enough, the individuals may become significant enough to cover. In this case the event has gone for years, and the individuals and their responses have been covered separately in many RS. The event has impacted Australia's national discussion so much that it clearly meets this threshhold. --99of9 (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete all WP:ONEEVENT clearly applies, Bali Nine covers the subject adequately. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete all no reason for individual articles when the crime is the notability-giver, per WP:CRIME. Hekerui (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Procedural keep of all nine due to all (except for Chen) being nominated in good faith to WP:GAN. Keep Chan and Sukumaran in any case, due to their death sentences. No opinion to the other seven on other merits. Sceptre 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- What does GAN nomination have to do with AFD? AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because it was made in good faith, and current GAs tend to be very quickly kept at AfD due to having that quality assessment. If they're then failed, then they should be allowed to be renominated with no prejudice. Sceptre 02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  - It hasn't undergone any quality assessment yet though. Quality and notability are two separate issues in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    - The point I'm making is that if a good faith quality assessment is merely pending then it should not be nominated for deletion. GA/FA immunity to AfD is an unwritten extension of BEFORE: that, by meeting the criteria, they implicitly pass NOT and N because, obviously, an nn-topic has little chance of meeting source requirements for even GA, and a NOT-topic would be quick-failed in either process. They're clearly not obvious failures, as the articles have been sitting at GAN for three months. Sceptre 03:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      - There is no such procedural keep for articles which are featured articles, let alone those only nominated for good status. Also articles can be assessed as good, even if they are not notable (see WP:WGN#Beyond the scope), although it is harder to meet the other criteria. The fact they have been in the queue for so long probably has as much to do with their questionable notability as anything else. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      - Sceptre, it's entirely possible that there's another reason they've been sitting there for so long--no one wants to touch them. Ha, I see now that Aircorn basically said that already. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      - This rule must be unwritten for a reason: nominate an article at WP:GAN and it will stay out of an AFD discussion for the weeks/months it remains on that page? If anything, clearing up notability should precede a GA nomination, but that's another rule no one wrote down. Hekerui (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        I disagree; if they were of questionable notability, they would probably get quick-failed by most GA reviewers. I think the AfD is premature, and that WP:BLP/N should've been used consulted prior to the notification. Sceptre 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

They won't get reviewed at GAN until this AfD is closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, they will likely fail on account of WP:GACR#5 if there is no consensus as to where the information should be, whether or not the articles should be merged or redirected, etc. –MuZemike 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect All to Bali Nine. None of these people are or were notable prior to their arrests, and that article sums up the encyclopaedic material quite nicely. Lankiveil 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC).
Redirect all of them per 1E. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Redirect all to Bali Nine. They are only notable for the Bali Nine event, everything else in the article draws from this. There may be a case for a short biography section in that article, but this is not necessary and everything else is already covered. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I stand by me Keep all opinion. For me it would be absurd to redirect or delete all individual articles. For example Scott Rushs case is totally different from Renae Lawrence for example and they have gone trough different court system proceduals. Which is not totally clear in the main article.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- ...yet. That's just a matter of editing. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: I ask that this actually be closed and not relisted, since there's been plenty of comments, and it is an issue that is holding up other processes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was Delete as a Foreign-language article that exists on another wikipedia project. --Theda 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Монгол хаадын ургийн хэлхээ

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

Foreign-language page that appears to be a chart. Breawycker (talk to me!) 16:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment:I have also tagged it for Speedy deletion per A2.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 16:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. m.o.p 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Massive Improv

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

From the contested prod - Non-notable organisation - one non-notable alumnus, one non-notable "recommendation", no reliable independent sources found. Very close to advert/original research. Google search shows little significant coverage - lots of social media, primary sources, and simple directory/calendar listings. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete as the PRODer, I still see nothing to indicate that this meets the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is a notable improvisation company from Houston, Texas. - HappyHubie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyhubie (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Happyhubie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Could you possibly explain which notability criteria it meets, and some reliable sources which are independent of the subject which would enable us to verify that? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\ 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes here are some more independant sources illustrating the presence of Massive Improv in Houston as well as a company profile. Please forgive me if the format is off but these additional references can be added to the page if necessary.

Massive came in 2nd in 2009 for funniest show in Houston: http://houston.cityvoter.com/best/live-comedy/arts-and-entertainment/houston/2009

Massive at the Houston Fringe Festival: http://www.artshound.com/event/detail/26821/2nd_Annual_Frenetic_Fringe_Festival

Massive Improv Inc. company profile: http://www.manta.com/c/mtcgzgp/massive-improv-inc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyhubie (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for those, but I don't think they constitute the 'significant coverage' required. The first confirms their presence in the festival. The second is a 2-sentence description of them, and to me it sounds as I'd they wrote it themselves, the 3rd confirms their existence (which no one is doubting) but does not give much detail, and is also submitted by the group themselves. I also note from your user name that you would appear to be a performer with the company? Please read this, which gives useful guidelines for you. Please be aware that Knowledge (XXG) is not a venue for promotion or for making organisation's appear 'legit' -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\ 05:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Jayjg 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Naftoli Carlebach

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

The entire article is based on one obituary, and I cannot find any other reliable sources to indicate notability. Although the subject is the father and father-in-law of notable people, notability is not inherited. (BTW this is a cousin, not the father, of Shlomo Carlebach.) Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It is a good start to a biography and part of the Carlebach rabbinic dynasty. In the case of a WP:NOTABLE rabbinic family or dynasty (see an example at Category:Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty), the WP rule of "notability is not inherited" is not clear. There is nothing inherently notable about Prince Harry of Britain except that he is the descendant of royalty but in this case this rabbi has more notable and meaningful accomplishments. IZAK (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Note, the article now has several more references. IZAK (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

- Comment: As you can see from the edit history, I tried to improve this article before questioning the subject's notability. I agree that it would be nice to save it, but the sources that you added are rather trivial – lists of teachers at the yeshiva, a passing note in an interview, a blog from some woman. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per IZAK. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Credible claim of notability, with additional sources added by IZAK providing further evidence. Additional sources are available, though the paucity of online access to references for this subject and in this time period makes finding material using Google all the more challenging. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. More sources are available under this alternative spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Phil. But most if not all of those cites are for Naftoli Carlebach's cousin, the father of Shlomo Carlebach. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. IZAK is wrong that being a member of a notable family automatically confers notability, that's why we're constantly agreeing to delete articles on minor Greek royals. Harry is notable because he has received coverage in reliable sources. Carlebach has not. As Yoninah says, the sources are trivial (others are otherwise insufficient, unreliable and/or referring to a different person). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are All Men Pedophiles?

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

This is an upcoming documentary for which there are no independent reliable sources yet. There are references on Imbd, but those don't count as reliable sources as there is no editorial control. The ref to sideways film isn't independent (but from the publisher). Though I think this movie will garner some press, we're not a crystal ball, and until that materialises, I don't think we should keep this article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete I agree that although this may (or may not) need the criteria for inclusion in the future, it does not as it currently stands. IMDB is not sufficient, and there does not appear to be any independent coverage at reliable sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The page has a link to IDFA http://www.idfa.nl/nl/tags/project.aspx?id=7F02F4C8-4D81-4273-9179-31E43164AEDF and sideways film, thats very reliable Article needs some work. Movie is not yet out, so for now its reasonable. I made some correctionsMeryllid (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)— Meryllid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The content on sideway films is not independent, it is the publisher (at least, it seems it is. Is it? If not, how is sideways connected to the film?). About the IDFA link (thanks for finding that!), is that independent? Was that content written by IDFA staff, or is it a press release, or otherwise content written by the publisher or the director? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete/transwiki to Uncyclopedia This article is as bereft of truly reliable sources as the film's thesis is of tenability. Pedophilia is clearly defined by WP:MEDRS as a predominate sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Colloquially, "pedophiles" are defined as criminals who engage in child sexual abuse. To say that because many men happen to find young women who have reached biological sexual maturity but are under the legal age of consent attractive, in addition to whatever other sexual preferences they may have, and regardless of whether they act illicitly upon such impulses, that all men are pedophiles, in either the medical or colloquial sense, is ridiculous. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Done, transwikied to . Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete or Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. Not yet released, not yet notable.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

IDFA is totally managed by IDFA, indipendent, the reason why I contributed to the page is to steer people in the right direction, pedophilia is not just prepubertal, it's way more complicated than that, please read the ICD and the DSM if you want to quote 'proffesional terms'86.83.126.171 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But the text that is there, is that written by IDFA staff, or is the text submitted to IDFA who placed it? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Not generally notable WP:GNG The film has not been released yet and will not be released until sometime in 2012, according to its Wiki authors. Today's date is 11/30/2011. It is possible it may not be released at all. I did find some results here but the budget for the film is 4,000 euros or about $5,000.00 dollars US and says it was released this year (2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, does not appear to meet the general notability criteria, no matter how many references to blogs, IMDB, etc. are added. Creating a film, book or musical work, and getting it added to databases, does not of itself make it notable. -- The Anome (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Anjali Kara

Ex husband is lakhan sharam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:251B:FDC0:359B:B52F:95FE:1E97 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Article has been deleted and recreated a couple times in the past. This latest incarnation doesn't demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO, or any other guideline. Dismas| 14:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG with no coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:PORNBIO with no awards. I don't see notability asserted in the article. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Fails GNG, PORNBIO etc; No reliable sources to establish notability. JoshyDinda (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Fails GNG and PORNBIO. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Which joker has put her birthdate as 1982??? Where is the source for this? Anjali is certainly in her mid to late thirties. I have movies of hers from 2002 when she appeared to be in her late 20's. This article should be deleted z list porn stars do not have a place on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.85.114 (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was redirect to reddit. Feel free to recreate when it ceases to be vapourware. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Survivor Zero

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

Unreleased game, with no evidence that it will actually ever be released. A website, forum and a few screenshots of 3d models doesn't make this notable Sheffieldbear (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

By that logic we should delete the Black Mesa source Knowledge (XXG) page too, as its just a website, forums, and a few screenshots with no evidence it will ever actually be released. 142.166.132.48 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 27 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) 18:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, no RS concerning this vaporware. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable game started by "users of reddit". SL93 (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete with a side-order of WP:SNOWBALL -- claims in article don't seem to match reliable sources, this was created by a frequently-blocked user, should have been caught by filter 425, but wasn't -- The Anome (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Average Joe (album)

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

Apparently non-notable self-published album: no evidence for notability provided.

Although the article states that this album debuted at #13 in the Billboard 200, that the album is rated 4.5 stars on Allmusic, and that Yahoo.com rated the album "favorable", none of the references given actually appear to support any of these claims, and a cursory search of other sources also failed to find any evidence to corroborate any of these claims. Indeed, the Allmusic entry cited has no entries at all in the "charts and awards" section, which seems discordant with the claim of having released an album that went straight to #13 in 2005.

It's not also clear what the statement "nominated in Billboard magazine" might mean -- nominated for what? by whom? -- and there's no cite given to support this, either.

Note that commons:File:The Average Joe (J-Pimp).jpg appears to exist solely to support this article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Says here http://www.billboard.com/album/j-pimp/the-average-joe/1000255 that the album has never charted. --Marjaliisa (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Since the claims of the article don't seem to match the facts, I'm going to speedy-close this. -- The Anome (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Schonberger

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

None of the supplied references could be considered significant coverage in independent reliable sources, suitable to prove notability. He has a job with Google, as do thousands of others, and only a select few are actually notable. The-Pope (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete unless nontrivial coverage of him in multiple published sources can be found. As it is, he does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and I don't know of a more subject-specific notability criterion that he would fit better. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete. No substantial coverage of the subject, just mentions in the context of articles on Google. While the sources don't have to be strictly "about" him, they do have to provide enough material for a full biography and these don't. At least for now. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete as an unnecessary content fork. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Love lake of the world

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

Duplicate of Hussain Sagar Lake. Full of original research and personal opinions. The author of this article is clearly trying to push his "invention" (see talk page) via Knowledge (XXG). The factual, sourced parts of the article are at the Hussain Sagar Lake article, the rest, which the author is persistently recreating here, is not viable content. Sparthorse (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, because the edit history is complex, the author originally created this article at Love lake of the world, moved it to Lovely lake of the world and back again. I moved it to Hussain Sagar Lake, which is the name of the lake. I then removed the original research from the article. The original author then recreated the article, with the original research at Love lake of the world. Sparthorse (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete for everything said by nom. Full of OR and what usable features there are, already seem to exist in the original article. 13:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Delete - If the creator is reading this, we only have one article per geographic location. This is exactly the same as Hussain Sagar Lake. Therefore if you have information regarding that lake add it to that article, please, and use this site to help with adding references. Cheers, PhnomPencil 13:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Phnom. I note that even if this article is deleted, it looks like we will still have two separate articles about this lake: Hussain Sagar and Hussain Sagar Lake. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, I hadn't spotted that. I'm redirecting Hussain Sagar Lake to Hussain Sagar.Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete and Salt - as this has been attempted before by the author, and the Hussain Sagar Lake article already covers the subject admirably well, with proper references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow Delete: Duplicate. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Looks like some good WP:RS, but doesn't really meet WP:GNG … also unnecessary fork of existing article. Happy Editing! — 72.75.56.190 (talk · contribs) _{23:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)}

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Keenan Santos and Reuben Fernandes Murders

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

Quote: "Friends and family members of Keenan and Reuben, started a social media campaign to ensure that this incident got visibility". Including making a WP article, it seems. Unfortunate event for sure, but this is local news of no global nor historical interest, as much as the article tells us about it. Also nominating the related redirects: Keenan Santos and Reuben Fernandes. - Nabla (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, local news of no global nor historical interest. - DonCalo (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - the article needs a rewrite. For me the fact that the facebook group has achieved a large number of hits makes me think the case has recieved widespread attention in India. We all know had this been an "American story" it would have not been an issue of "local story".--BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, US (UK, 'western') stories get through to WP more easily than India's (or Cameroon, or Guatemala, or Portugal for that matter :-). The way to go is to better filter (out non) meaningful US stories, not to include any little Indian story. - Nabla (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, routine news coverage that runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Lordehytta

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

Article about a stone hut in Norway. The only source is to a local municipal website. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to show this is a notable building, clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Prod was contested, so bringing here for a wider discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep To be honest, I don't see any benefits for Knowledge (XXG) in deleting this kind of information. The article has one good source (I don't see any problems with the 'local' nature of the source, it has nothing to do with reliability of the information). Moreover, the cottage is mentioned in the book Kulturgeschichte des Reisens (Cultural History of Travelling), ISBN 9783896785480, p. 87 (in German) (available at G-Books). The information could serve to people travelling in Norway. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep In addition to the brief but interesting mention in the German book adduced by Vejvančický, there are a lot of Norwegian-language hits on the Kvasir search engine. It has some cultural importance. I've improved the English and clarified some things (including the meaning of the name) and added some additional details and inline references. The one English source I found has some mistranslation, but I've added it in support of the basic points. As a point of potential confusion, one source notes that there were several huts in Norway given this name because they were built by either this baron or his father; there is also this one in Seldal, built 30 years later by Edward Theodore Salvesen. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep - it's now a well-written, informative and properly-sourced article on a clearly-Notable topic. Well done Yngvadottir! Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, now well sourced. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Seems fine to me. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Ohio Valley Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues

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

Per precedent set already, we at WikiProject College Basketball do not use these articles as they are redundant and their information can be found in the main articles of their respective conference tournaments. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason above:

Southern Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, duplicative of main article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom and comments. And precedence. Rikster2 (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Classic Boat Company

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

No verifiable evidence provided demonstrating significant coverage of the company in reliable sources independent of it per WP:General notability guidelines and WP:CORP. One of the two references is from the company website (and therefore not independent); the other contains only an incidental mention of the company name. Tagged for notability since December 2007. Propose Delete. I don't have access to Nexis, but take Jezhotwells' word for it that the company appears notable based on the sources he/she has reviewed and cited. I withdraw the nomination. Propose Speedy Keep. --DGaw (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep Not a major boatbuilder, but I'd say that their work on building the Matthew replica is sufficient. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep I have added some cites from the Evening Post which support the statements in the article. I feel it meets the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

KEEZ (artist)

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

Declined speedy, as "known for" a campaign is a good faith claim of importance. However, Google is failing me in my quest to establish notability. "KEEZ says REVOLT" gets only this article as a hit; KEEZ gets a lot of hits for adult websites, a DJ, and a radio station in Minnesota, but I don't see the artist discussed at all. Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Should have been speedy deleted as unambiguous promotion. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete. A Google search of "KEEZ" art does not result in anything relevant but this article. "KEEZ" mostly results in porn-related pages. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 20:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stein's Rockin R Mobile Home Park, Iowa

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stein's Rockin R Mobile Home Park, Iowa

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

Non-notable neighborhood. Aside from the GNIS, I can't find a single reliable source which says this place even exists, much less anything which would approach significant coverage. Neighborhoods are not inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Well it certainly exists (1 million+ ghits), but is not really notable. It's already mentioned in the Gilmore City, IA article anyway. --Marjaliisa (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm only getting about 2400 ghits, and most of those are from sites which either import GNIS data or import content from Knowledge (XXG) without mentioning Knowledge (XXG), so that's not the most reliable measure of existence. TheCatalyst31 07:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete, neighboorhoods in small towns are not inherently notable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Lance Haas

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

I found no significant coverage for this musician. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to verify this BLP. Mattg82 (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BAND - not a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Royal broil 03:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was userfy. Page now lives at User:Czarkoff/Xxxterm. m.o.p 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Xxxterm

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

Can't find any reliable references. This web browser is simply not notable enough and nobody has written about, although it got into the debian distro. mabdul 02:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. At the very least it needs to be edited to make it more neutral. The page gives off this advertise-y vibe with such phrases as "lightweight yet secure replacement". Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
What's wrong with this phrase? Or if anything is good, we can't mention it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: What's wrong? There is no prove for that! Every developer can create code which is really short, but has major security issues. Only because it is lightweight it doesn't mean it is less code nor it secure. mabdul 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
That would be relevant if the page stated that xxxterm is lightweight yet secure replacement. Instead it stated designed to be, and now — developed with a goal to become. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, right. But still is this claim unreferenced... mabdul 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Now referenced. See, collaboration already occurs! ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I first have written a stub, and then started searching sources, as I was sure it has due coverage. It happened that it didn't, as it is only reviewed in a couple of blogs. Its popularity increases, so it will get some coverage in following months. While it violates WP:N now (evidently), I just think its impractical to delete it. P.S.: It got to Debian (and Arch, and Gentoo, and somewhere else) because it's popular under OpenBSD, thus the mantra lightweight yet secure. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete or userfy Not notable at this time. Maybe it will become notable but that's not enough a reason to keep it for now. Jarkeld (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This article has a committed editor (me), who's periodically patrolling the web. Though I won't object to userification, I just don't see any use in removing it from article space. In fact, the neutrality of my wording is already questioned, so multiple user's input will be needed anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: That is not the way how Knowledge (XXG) is working. First notability, then (maybe) an article in Knowledge (XXG). Not the other way round. mabdul 15:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
But there is already an article, and it can be improved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Improving an article is OK (and there wasn't any improvement in the last month), but again: since you can't provide any third party, independent, reliable references, I don't see any reason why this software should be included in an encyclopedia because of its notability. mabdul 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, for me the fact that it's mentioned in OpenBSD's FAQ proves its notability. There are just too few external projects mentioned and a strict process of material inclusion in that FAQ. The current Knowledge (XXG) policy's approach shifts the idea of notability from importance to buzz, so that we do have even articles on software that was buzzy, but was never released. Don't get me wrong, I don't state that this article should be kept because that one exists, I just want to stress that there is a significant portion of material that is inadequately covered.

I could write a review of xxxterm for the site that is considered a reliable software news site here, and so the notability would get established. That would even not qualify for gaming the system, as I'll get an editor's approval in a couple of hours and a bunch of metoo comments and plusit hits to the article within a day. Furthermore, I could go to /. and link the review there, so there'll be a bunch of reviews in blog-like news sites. Is this type of evidence really required? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep There's significant coverage; I'm willing to credit the references cited with reliability for the purposes of this article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete or userfy Sources aren't sufficient to indicate notability. All are self-published except for one blog post (not an RS) and a single line in the OpenBSD FAQ (a passing mention). Because the user has promised above that there will be reliable sources in the near future, I'd lean towards userfy, with a deletion following if they don't materialize. Dcoetzee 10:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Dollar Cinema (Montreal, Quebec)

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

Article is an advertisement, a glorified business listing if you will. There is absolutely nothing unique about this business operation to merit an article. Not pricing, not films shown, not the owner, and not theater itself. For the latter, it is a movie theater built in the late 70's with no special architecture or design traits. Nothing historic happened here either, it was just a general run-of-the-mill shopping center cinema for 20 years that closed and later reopened as a cheap second-run theater. I feel it is no different from having an article on the convenience store around the corner from me. Apple2gs (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
There are at least three of these within 30 minutes of me, and this one doesn't appear to be at all different. Delete, per the nominators reasoning. Nolelover 06:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Wow talk about cheap! But yeah, that doesn't make it notable enough for an article. PhnomPencil 13:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Incidentally it's no longer $1/ticket, it's gone up to $2.85. The dollar-store concept applied to movie ticket admission was the only unique thing about it, but with that long gone, there is nothing remotely article worthy about it now (not that there really was to begin with; in retrospect, I should have never created the article in the first place). --Apple2gs (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was merge to Rob Sorrenti. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wednesday (film)

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

Non-notable short film. The director has won awards, but they were not for this short, and notability is not inherited. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep An article on Rob Sorrenti published by North East Independent says: "His first short, “Wednesday,” was screened at 50 festivals, including RIIFF in 2007, and won Best Short Film at the Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival in Florida, Best International Short at the Garden State Film Festival in New Jersey and 1st Jury Prize at the Short Cuts Film Festival in Cologne, Germany. RIIFF was the first festival Sorrenti ever screened at." In my opinion it is enough to meet our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Rob Sorrenti. I do not believe that the above link is enough to prove "significant coverage in reliable sources" to pass the WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Rob Sorrenti Regardless of the subjective importance of this film, I don't see enough material in RS to write a good article. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Per Awards, passes WP:FILMS#4: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"--Cavarrone (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tokyo Heroes (band)

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

Japanese underground band that does not appear to reach notability standards per WP:NBAND. Members do not have independent notability, none of their albums or songs have charted, and although they are signed to a label, Art-Pop Records, it is not a "major" record label and they have not released any full-length albums under this label (nor have they ever). Current sources in the article point to primary sources and routine listings. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 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, –MuZemike 00:56, 20 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Articles sources are primary or non-WP:RS. Searching in English sources confirms only that they exist, but nothing useful towards notability. Translated Japanese sources appear to just be primary listings, sales sites, and blogs. I also could not find an entry for them in the Japanese WP space, either under their English or Japanese names. Fails WP:N. If better sourcing can be found, happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Reliable sources are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I did a Google search in Japanese and found nothing like a reliable, third-person source. There is not even a JP wikipedia article. Note that if this is deleted, the pages created for some of their recordings should also be nominated for deletion if they have not been already. Michitaro (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unimedia.md

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

No proof of notability. Not sure in windowonthemedia.com as reliable source. PtQa (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unimedia is one of the only independent sources of information in Moldova (along with Ziarul de Garda). The fact that no English-speaking outlet mentions it doesn't make it less notable. The entry in the Romanian-language version of Knowledge (XXG) certainly lacks sources but it is maintained by several contributors and hasn't ever been considered for deletion. Nicolaskb (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Unimedia is one of the only independent sources of information in Moldova - it doesnt prove notability. The entry in the Romanian-language version of Knowledge (XXG) certainly lacks sources - yep, and u know why? PtQa (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I've added some additional text and sourcing to the article from the BBC, Radio Free Europe, The Sofia Echo, and the Interlic News Service. Here's another from 2010 where the acting president of Moldova fields a question from a Unimedia reporter and in response makes a joke specifically referring to Unimedia. This April 2009 news report from official Moldovan news agency listing Unimedia as one of "Moldova's main information sites" down because of too many trying to get the "latest news about the protest actions". There are several hundred Gnews hits specifically to Unimedia.md--most are not of individual interest for notability purposes (sample), but as a group I think they help establish Unimedia's notability as a news source. It is even starting to turn up in scholarly articles. And, I know this doesn't prove notability, but it's still a data point: Alexa shows them as being 20th-ranked Moldovan (*.md) site. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Hobbes Goodyear's excellent work and research. Nolelover 06:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep per substantial improvements by Hobbes Goodyear. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Berry Square

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

Non-notable shopping centre in North Sydney, no assertion of notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As the nom says, there's no real assertion of notability and I couldn't find anything to make one. Nolelover 06:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)