Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 2

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 21 (Sat) September 20 (Fri) September 19 (Thu) More...

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

< 1 May	3 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No evidence has been adduced of remotely meeting notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FISh (programming language)

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

I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. All signs point to this being a completely insignificant language. The website looks like it was left for dead over a decade ago. --NINTENDUDE 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this article, which appears to have been written by the same person that created the website. Interesting, but agreed - old, and apparently left for dead. VeritosNow (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I cannot find reliable sources discussing this programming language. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2012 (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 per very weak consensus and copyright issues Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Scholla

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

Promotional article & borderline notability ; I would delete by speedy except it's been here since 2007. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Local newscaster with no indication of coverage about him that would establish notability. I've also tagged the article for copyright issues. Bits and pieces of the article have been copied or closely paraphrased from . - Whpq (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. I hope for the best too but I have to agree with the delete !voters here Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sierra LaMar

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

Per WP:BLP1E, the coverage of this person relates only to a single event, in this case, her abduction. I hope for her safe return. The Interior (Talk) 22:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC) The Interior (Talk) 22:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails GNG by a long shot. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep - Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)

Denis Bérardier

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

Very little information about the subject as well as very few references. GouramiWatcher 22:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep He was a member of the Estates-General during the French Revolution, and thus qualifies as a member of the national legislature. True, this had not yet been translated into this English version of the article, but it was in the French one, properly linked by a transwiki link, and even the Google Translation would have shown it. I added that much, and will do the rest if the original contributor doesnt finish what he started--he seems to be doing these absurdly skimpy transwiki articles, and I've reminded him. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems suitable to keep the article since more information has been added to it. Thanks, --GouramiWatcher 00:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was nomination withdrawn; common outcome for secondary schools. (NAC) OSborn _contribs. 01:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Altwood CofE Secondary School

Proposal withdrawn WP:SNOW --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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

No sources to indicate notability. Appears to be a WP:MILL run of the mill school. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a sizable C of E high school that leads to the GCSE and beyond ; under our customary standards, it seems to be a clear keep.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - senior high school that needs sourcing up not deleting. This school absorbed two earlier high schools so there is plenty of history that can be researched and added. TerriersFan (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Historic secondary school = strong keep per WikiProject School guidelines. Can always add to and improve the article if that's what's warranted, or add it to the list on their Help page for school articles needing revamping. Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the section which reads "School district and high/secondary school articles are usually kept, as they are almost always considered notable" --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Consensus is that verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Also was in G11 territory, written in pure marketese. Seraphimblade 06:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

SHOP.CA

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

An article which was previously declined at WP:AFC because of being "advertisingly", newly accepted by a rather new user, contains still many advertising peacock terms and moreover doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:WEB. Of all 6 references are two primary sources, one press release and the others only mention the shop bypassing.

PS: all references have a ,' at the end and thus doesn't display correctly. mabdul 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mabdul. SHOP.CA is notable because nothing has ever been done on this scale before in Canada, at least not in terms of retail eCommerce. We'll have considerably more external sources once we launch. What can I do to help bring the current article in line with your requirements? This is my first time out, and I'm absolutely open to suggestions/assistance/edits.

PS: Can you show me an example of correct reference code? Does the ,' go just before the closing </ref> tag?

MarketingMaiden (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Check the history of the article: I fixed the , problem (by removing them after the url!). You still can improve and change the article: so include your references or mention them here and we can see if that chop is worth to get an article in an encyclopedia! mabdul 09:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, mabdul. I appreciate the help. Working on edits and searching out additional references now. Will post notes shortly. MarketingMaiden (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Userfy or Delete. It hasn't even opened yet, has no notability, article doesn't prove any. Should not exist (at least not yet) on Knowledge (XXG) per WP:CRYSTAL. After several months, if it has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources (that are not advertising or press releases, it might be worth it to replace on Knowledge (XXG) (in a truncated, NPOV form), but not before that. Right now it's just an obvious, blatant promotion/advertising, and the article creator admits that on her userpage. It's clearly on Knowledge (XXG) to publicize the opening of a store. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for this company/web site which has yet to even launch. The article itself is promotional in tone and would need a fundamental rewrite to adhere to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. I searched the Globe and Mail and the National Post websites for "shop.ca" and came up with nothing relevant. A Google search also turned up no evidence of significant independent coverage; moreover, in looking at my Google results for ("shop.ca" online canada), I was struck by the number of hits for sites like futureshop.ca, scoutshop.ca, thewebshop.ca, etc. If shop.ca were receiving significant coverage, I think it'd show up in Google results before these supposedly more obscure websites. If the company proves to have staying power, a new article can be written: one that adheres to WP:NOTADVERTISING. Ammodramus (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

War on Terra

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

Don't get me wrong. I love the punny segment titles The Daily Show comes up with. But this one from 2005 passes WP:N just because the BBC had a short series by the same name? Or is it because of the band, which according to their Myspace last logged in over a year ago and has no shows scheduled? (Its inclusion is WP:PROMOTION anyway.) The article suffers from multiple issues, and we should put it out of its misery. It also seems that Uncyclopedia had it first, which is never a good sign. The first sentence even admits it's a catchphrase! --BDD (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete There's really nothing notable about a self-admitted catchphrase. Ducknish (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete because WP:IS NOT A COLLECTION OF GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS. Oh, and per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge. If it's a catchphrase from The Daily Show, we should merge it into the show's Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical Infrastructure Modeling Simulation (CIMS)

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

Non-notable software package. Miracle Pen (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Unremarkable software package - I could not find significant coverage in independent sources, so notability is not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find the sourcing we'd need to show notability here. I'm happy to reconsider if someone finds something, but I'm coming up blank. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article's only reference is trivial coverage at best (per WP:GNG). As Ultraexactzz wrote, can't find anything further. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Vaalu

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

Prod removed, so it has to come here. A classic example of WP:CRYSTAL, though it probably will be notable when it finally appears. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per CRYSTAL and no notability. Plus the director doesn't even have an article, links to a dab page. Softlavender (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Softlavender. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL does not tell us we cannot discuss future events, but wisely instructs how and where they might be discussed if they have suitable coverage. That said, Delete per TOOSOON and determine to just "Vijay" article this title might be redirected. The topic of a film to be called "Vaalu" is not unsourcable, and policy allows that we might at least find some place where a well-covered topic might be spoken of in context. The dab page spoken of above shows a numnber of notable Indians referred to as "Vijay", so I will not declare that there is no article on tis one... only that we are at the moment simply unsure just which one he is. The topic has been hinted and written about for a couple years, and just a few weeks ago we learn that that music is being composed for this as-yet-unmade film. BUT, as all we have in more recent news are announcements of Vaalu to be directed "by newbie Vijay" and some news of planned cast, the topic fails WP:NFF. I note that policy allows how it might be reasonable to mention it within the director's article (as we may well have one on him) as a project in pre-production, even if not yet meriting a separate article. Schmidt, 01:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion is not permanent. It can always be recreated when there is sufficient info to support a decent article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an article can be recreated if/when a topic's time finally comes. But redirects that properly serve the reader are quite cheap, and in this case could act to prevent a premature recreation. Schmidt, 07:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. This was going to be a no consensus close because opinions are divided on whether or not he passes WP:GNG. If someone wishes to recreate this article with sources then we can revisit this issue again. I'll be happy to userfy or incubate this article upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Incubated to Knowledge (XXG):Article Incubator/Justin Bethel. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bethel

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

Though the material in here can be verified, I see no indication of notability by our usual standards DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I don't know why this article was nominated for deletion, he was recently drafted into the NFL, along with 253 other players. I understand that per WP:NGRIDIRON the athlete is supposed to have played a game, and he they have yet to play a game in the league, the intention of this rule does not seem to be to stop players who have not yet had the opportunity top play a game from having a Knowledge (XXG) page. Bethel is a notable as most of the other drafted players. If Bethel is deleted than there are a significant number of other players who should be deleted as well.NEPats (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. It is true that he has not yet played in an NFL game (and indeed he may never do so), but more than 100 recent stories show up at GNews, including stuff like "Draft Sleeper Justin Bethel Turns Heads By Jumping Five Feet In The Air" (CNBC). A number of older articles talk about his college play. As with almost every NFL draft pick there is likely to be enough coverage to support an article. This can be revisited in the fall if he doesn't make a team, but I don't think deleting it now is a net positive for our NFL covereage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep appears to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, for now. I second Arxiloxos' comment: I think we're in a wait-and-see mode after the subject was drafted. If he gets cut in August, we should probably revisit this AfD under pending new CFB notability standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Being drafted does not mean he will play a game. He was drafted in the 6th round and only ~1/2 of last year's 6th round draftees have played a game. Knowledge (XXG) is not WP:CRYSTAL. Routine coverage for a lower level draft pick and college athlete. If he eventually plays a game, the article can be recreated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)
Delete. He does not pass GNG. He does not pass NGRIDIRON yet, and as Bgwhite pointed out, he may never. Recreate the article if he ever actually plays in the NFL. cmadler (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Low Viscosity

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

Article was originally deleted as CSD A7. Restored per request on IRC en-help. Notability of the subject isn't clear and subject fails WP:MUSIC. Subject barely meets WP:GNG as far as multiple source (2) but the sources are pretty mundane and routine coverage. v/r - T P 19:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Without solid references, seems a bit of a fluid situation... at the moment deletion looks the only permissible choice but if better citations can be found I'll be happy to look at this again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete As an an article that does not have reliable sources and is not notable. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete then Redirect to Viscosity where low viscosity is explained adequately. --Lenticel 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete I cannot find any evidence that this guy meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. --sparkl_!sm 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Florian Ghimpu

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

I can find no independent, in-depth coverage indicating this individual might be notable. - Biruitorul 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails to meet notability. Just looks like someone's resume posted onto Knowledge (XXG) for promotion. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per S. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete (CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Nothing at all has changed to reduce the validity of the reasons given in the earlier AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Viktoria Foxx

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not basing this nomination on the fact that I don't know who she is, but... I don't know who she is. The article itself doesn't supply much in the way of establishing notability. I can't find any verification that she is a politician. I'm not sure if "Miss MySpace USA" is a notable title in itself (and according to its home page it appears to be defunct). According to IMDB she appeared on one episode of a TV show as "herself" (as a member of The Veronicas, which is surely an error because the Vik Foxx who was in the band is a man). Searching "Viktoria Foxx" -wikipedia results in a lot of social media but nothing substantive. Also the article was created by User:DrSachaNemcov who shares a surname with the subject (Viktoria Nemcova) and has his picture on the subject's MySpace page, so is probably her brother. ... discospinster _talk 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, the article in question does not appear to meet WP:GNG, indeed there doesn't really seem to be any legitimate reliable outside sources backing up the claims in the article. Ducknish (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as per above reasons. Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mackenzee Pierce

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the WP:GNG. Her award nominations are not in significant categories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, does not reflect actual criteria of GNG and PORNBIO. Cavarrone (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - does not past GNG. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per MT's analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles C. W. Cooke

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

Not notable. Just a writer doing his job. Sources provided are by him, not about him. Nothing better found. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E or maybe merge with Occupy Wall Street. mabdul 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - doesn't appear to meet either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. If there are no articles about a subject, then there's nothing to base an article on. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Emily Addison

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

Puff piece for bondage model created by SPA. Fails current, disfavored version of PORNBIO as well as the GNG. Common name, but all pertinent GNews hits appear to be press releases. No reliably sourced biographical content. All references are promo pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Same concerns as OP really. Non-notable. No awards. Etc. Wouldn't pass WP:GNG or any other standards. Dismas| 17:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: PORNBIO was amended yesterday so I'm not sure how it applies considering her award. I have not had a chance to review the category of the award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

She wasn't even in the video involved and can't possibly have won or been nominated for the award. I don't know if the SPA-article creator is merely inept, grossly confused, or trying to put something over. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete then. BLP warnings are appropriate in addition to the removal of any unverified claim. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Fails GNG without RS coverage. Fails PORNBIO both old and current. One AVN nomination claim fails verification. The other AVN "win" was for the film (best release), not her. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Fails GNG. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as G11, promotional. Very clear instance of COI. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

NewGate India

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any reliable sources that might indicate this company passes Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines for companies. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete It could possibly go under WP:CSD G11 (noting several uses of the we-voice) or A7 (the article has plenty of vague future aspirations for the firm but no evidence of achieved notability). AllyD (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Funny read though. Colipon+(Talk) 20:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Palestine.

Numerically, there is about a 2:1 split in favor of deletion. On both sides, many opinions are of questionable persuasiveness. On the "delete" side, many consist of blanket references to policies such as POVFORK whose applicability to this content is less than clear; and many "keep" opinions make an argument in political terms rather than in terms of our inclusion rules. The low quality of the discussion, sadly typical for this topic area, makes consensus difficult to assess.

But there is a compromise solution: many opinions on both sides indicate that they would also accept some form of merger or redirection. This allows us to read the discussion as a whole to reflect consensus that the use of the name "occupied Palestine" should be covered, but not in a separate article.

To implement this, I am redirecting the page to the article about the general region of Palestine; to where (subject to editorial consensus) content can be merged from the page history to describe the use of this term as one of several names used by some for this region or parts of it. Of course, should a more appropriate merge/redirect/disambiguation target present itself, it can also be selected by subsequent editorial consensus (this discussion does not go into much detail about that). Sandstein 05:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Occupied Palestine

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

Obvious WP:POVFORK should be merged with Palestinian territories. The article was redirect until one user has decided to turn it to the article Shrike (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just from looking at the article without having studied the sources it is describing a separate concept to the Palestinian Territories, thus it is not a POV fork in my view. Whether it is justified as an article is another question, but I think the grounds you have put forward for deletion are not valid. Dlv999 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete/Redirect (possibly to with Palestine; I'm not convinced there's any content that needs to be merged). It roughly describes the same area as the historical region of Palestine (as opposed to the Occupied Territories which are only a small part of it) and allowing this extra article is just going to confuse people. There's no need to have an article for every term that's used to describe an area, particularly when it's of the form adjective+proper noun. Redirecting to Palestinian territories might also work, as even though it's not the same exact region, it may be the article that most people want. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Concur with Shrike. A clear case of WP:POVFORK. Can & should be merged with Palestinian territories.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and/or redirect. Jiujitsuguy said it's a "clear case" but without giving any reasons. Generally, if something is clear it's easy to explain why it is so. Colapeninsula said it is "going to confuse people", but that has nothing to do with violating NPOV. If there is something unclear in the body of the article, then let's team up and clarify it. AfD is not cleanup. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a fork because it's another name for something that already has a Knowledge (XXG) article. You don't have 2 articles on the same thing just because it has multiple names. I'm not 100% certain it's forked for reasons of promoting an anti-Israeli agenda, although that's certainly one possible reason to create yet another article to refer to the area south of Lebanon and west of Jordan, but it's certainly a duplicate article. The question you need to answer is: is there any information that would be better placed in this new article than in any of the existing articles on Palestinian history and politics? If not, delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as per Jiujitsuguy. Some content may also fit in at Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Really the only content I can see worth saving is the last paragraph, explaining the use of the term by other nations. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and expand: The article is about a term used officially by some countries like Iran, Syria and Lebanon, and unofficially by a large numbers of arabs. The reader may seek about this term which is definitively not equal to the internationally used term "Occupied Palestinian Territories". The term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is very well defined by United Nations, International Court for Justice and other international organizations, it's not that like "Occupied Palestinian Territories" could be used for any land that Israel claims or administers but which Palestinians want to have for themselves. "Eretz Yisrael" article is another name for the roughly Palestine region. The Eretz Yisrael article started with: "The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל‎‎ ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is a biblical name for the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the Southern Levant (also known as Canaan, Palestine, Promised Land or simply the Holy Land)". "Promised Land" yet another term roughly for the same area and concept as "Eretz Yisrael". The article "Palestine" itself is saying that "Eretz Yisrael" is another name for the region. So should we redirect "Eretz Yisrael" & "Promised Land" articles to "Palestine" article? The "Palestine" article in it's actual form is talking about a region keep changing it's borders by time. It's not suitable for any of "Occupied Palestine", "Eretz Yisrael" & "Promised Land", whose borders and/or concepts are much more precise. 3Princip (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If we delete and merge this article do we also need to delete and merge Judea and Samaria Area to West Bank ? The cases appear rather similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No because this article about Israeli administrative district.But if you think there is a case for AFD you welcome to propose one.--Shrike (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the article is almost entirely about the name of a spatial object according to one nation state, and its status, which is of course the same as the status of the West Bank because they are the same spatial object. Having articles about the names given to spatial objects and their status is fine by me but decision procedures need to be consistent across the topic area because using different rules for the same spatial object based on naming preferences would be wrong in a number of ways. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge and return to a redirect any potential content for this article name can easily fit into sections of the target article (including the lede using both terms if necessary), and expanded there, as the two terms are too close in coverage to justify 2 articles. it was previously built up some years ago, then turned into a redirect. I know there is considerable debate about how to characterize this region, but this is just too narrow a distinction.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and expand - A cursory search for "occupied palestine" in Google books suggests that there are plenty of sources using this term that could be used to build an informative article that discusses the term at the meta level, just like Judea and Samaria Area. Both Occupied Palestine and Judea and Samaria Area are POVFORKs but in the acceptable sense of "Articles whose subject is a POV". Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Not a POVFORK at all. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Titles should adhere to the Neutral point of view. Occupied Palestine is just another name for the Palestinian territories, the first being prejudicial. We don't have separate articles for Occupied Cyprus and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Marokwitz (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If the article remains restricted to talking about the term itself, what it means, who uses it, is it so different from articles like Third World and First World ? It seems analogous to me. I'm not sure neutrality comes into it. What the words happen to be is out of our hands and it seems a lot more neutral than articles with names like Geography of Burma...no such place. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If the article is about the term itself (not the geographical entity), then it is not notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Where are reliable secondary sources discussing the term itself, as required by the notability criteria? Marokwitz (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I could potentially buy that argument because I don't know the answer to your question. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep For consistency across the IP topic area. We have an article for Judea and Samaria Area so it is reasonable to have an article for Occupied Palestine. Also I find the argument that this is a POV fork of Palestinian Territories unconvincing because they do not refer to the same territorial area. Dlv999 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Its just the less neutral name for the Palestinian territories. There is nothing in this potential article that cannot be included in Palestinian territories.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: For those who are still saying that it's just another name for Palestinian territories, do you have even read what borders the sources in Occupied Palestine article are talking about? It's not the same area, Palestinian territories does NOT have borders with Syria nor with Libanon; Totally different, the "Occupied Palestine" term refers to a region corresponding to what was the borders of the british mandate on Palestine. 3Princip (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at the content of the article, it's clear that it was not created for encyclopedic purposes. For just one of the recent examples: "carried out by the West in its attempt to wrest the Holy Land from the Arabs." The topic is not unique enough to warrant its own article. The exact same information about some Israel haters denying its existence and considering all of it to be "occupied" is covered in other articles such as Palestine, Palestinian territories, and Israel, so this is most obviously a WP:POVFORK. We don't give separate articles for every distinct name used by various people to refer to the same thing. If we did, then we would have separate articles for USA, United States, United States of America, America, etc. Another note is that we don't have articles for similar countries that face the same nonsensical attacks, such as people who claim all of America is occupied as it was stolen from the Natives. "Occupied America" is a very prominent term and yet it does not warrant its own encyclopedic article. The information surrounding that claim is contained within other articles, where appropriate. The same should apply for this case. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are basing your judgment on a version of the article (containing "carried out by the West in its attempt to wrest the Holy Land from the Arabs.") that have been submitted recently by anonymus 89.139.190.175 as its first contribution out of total of 4 contributions. The article has been tagged to deletion on that version. 3Princip (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. I based my judgment on the version of the article at the time of my viewing. That was just one example I gave to explain why it should be deleted. I assume since you did not respond to the other several points I made, that you do not have any convincing rebuttals to those points. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

About your other points: USA=United States=United States of America="Occupied America". Occupied Palestine≠Palestine(the article about a region whose boundaries have changed throughout history)≠Palestinian territories≠Israel. We have an article about West Bank but also about 98% of it which is Judea and Samaria area. The article is a stub and could be expanded, if you want to help expanding it you are welcome. 3Princip (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria are notable names, recognized as such by the most reliable historic and academic sources. "Occuppied Palestine" is an Arab dig against Israel and holds no such notability. It can be referenced in other articles as a term, and content from this article can be merged elsewhere (though it seems that such content is already all over the I/P space). But because it exudes a blatant POV stench, it's not suitable for an article, nor an article title, that should be neutral. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete "Occupied Palestine" is actually the name of the total area which includes the State of Israel, Jordan, (which was also part of the British Mandate for Palestine) and the current Palestinian territories. The name "Occupied Palestine" has recently taken on a new meaning which does not include Jordan, and does not recognize the existence of the State of Israel. It is a new term that denotes a particular anti-Israel bias and as such is not neutral. Isn't there already an Israeli-occupied territories? Opportunidaddy (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations, governments and others to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria." (from the article itself). It's just not the same as "Occupied Palestine". 3Princip (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails notability with a staunch POV aroma. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Google book research gives 44,300 results (skipping the first page which talk about Occupied Palestinian Territories), not talking about Google search itself which gives 1,130,000 results nor the 4,010,000 results for Arabic "فلسطين المحتلة‎" and 12,700 results for Hebrew "פלסטין הכבושה" Google search (the Arabs and Jews are the most related to the subject). "Occupied Palestine" is the official name for Israel+Palestinian territories for some UN members countries, and they use it in almost every single official speech. It's even written in the Iranian passport (there should be like 70,000,000 passports where the term is written on it). 3Princip (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Silly point. "Israel sucks" churns out 236,000 ghits. Go ahead start Israel sucks.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is "Israel sucks" used in UN members diplomacy? having 12,700 results for the Hebrew "פלסטין הכבושה" (which is the official language of State of Israel the opposed country to such a term) indicate that the term really exists. The Yedioth Ahronoth newpaper alone mentioned it 712 times always inside a quotation sign; the term DOES exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Princip (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I will WP:AGF and assume that you do not speak Hebrew. Because if you did, you would know that the vast majority of those google results refer to the West Bank/Gaza, not all of the former British Mandate for Palestine. Therefore, these search results actually support deletion as they indicate that this is just a WP:POVFORK. You would also have noticed that most of the results link to the exact same article, which is why these games of "how many Google results can we find" don't prove anything. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe some of the 712 hits in the Google search in Yedioth Ahronoth are repeated or linked to a talk page, but still the numbers of different articles is significants. I have stopped at page 6, and already found 15 distinguish articles . And no, they don't refer to West Bank/Gaza, they refer to Israel (Acre, Naharya, Kiryat Shmona ,Northern border with lebanon, etc.) If you insist to redirect the Occupied Palestine to another article as a POVFORK then it should be merged to Israel. 3Princip (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Convert to DAB between Israeli-occupied territories and International recognition of Israel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete This is obviously a POVFORK and is rather redundant, considering there is an article on Palestinian territories already. There is simply no point to this article, other than to broadcast the POV of the editor. In accordance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policy of neutrality, this article should be deleted without a doubt. The article is also a COATRACK, in which the subject at hand is hidden behind the bias and POV of the editor. This is just an attempt to add bias and POV to a Knowledge (XXG) article, for whatever agenda the editor may have, and should be deleted immediately. --Activism1234 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In order to be a COATRACK article, "coat rack should be almost completely obscured by hats and coats.". 3Princip (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete A WP:POVFORK which should be merged with Palestinian territories.Ankh.Morpork 12:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: vestigial, poorly-sourced POVFork. Hrafn_Stalk 04:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, etc. etc. Poliocretes (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've just found this; not really related to the meaning of the term "Occupied Palestine", but it shows that the term "Occupied Palestine" was used as an Example Model in the definition of other terms (to help the reader understanding what the writer want to tell easily). 3Princip (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Clearly a WP:POVFORK that has become (and will apparently continue to be) a receptacle for anti-Israel material despite 3Principl's reversions.--Geewhiz (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First: it's not of Knowledge (XXG) intentions to hide informations just because they are anti-Israel materials. If there is any information violates Knowledge (XXG) rules, please point to it directly explaining the rule it's violating.

Second: Any one who has knowledge about the Arab-Israeli conflict surely know that the people who use the term "Occupied Palestine" when using it refer more to Israel, while the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" or just "Palestinian Territories" refers to West Bank/Gaza; the sourced containings of the article will not be just deleted, it will be merged to another article; so what do you suggest? moving these "receptacle for anti-Israel material" to the article Israel itself?! I'm for separating this article alone. 3Princip (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian territories, Palestinian National Authority, Palestine, State of Palestine, Israeli settlements, West Bank, Judea and Samaria area, International law and Israeli settlements, 1948 Palestinian exodus, Controversies relating to the Six-Day War - these articles and many more discuss "occupation" in the sense that it is used here. No need for more, especially an article as POV-laced and cherry-picked as this one. --Geewhiz (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete/Redirect/Merge – after having a thorough look at the sources and content that constitute the article, my conclusion is that it's not a topic appropriate to an encyclopedia but rather to a dictionary or a glossary on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It would be one thing if there was agreement among the sources that "Occupied Palestine" is an established term, but in reality about half the sources use the expression "occupied Palestine" with a lowercase "o," implying that what we're dealing with is an arbitrary co-occurrence of terms rather than a genuine collocation. I might be persuaded to reconsider if there were more clearly encyclopedic content in the article, such as when and by whom the term was used originally or what political/cultural implications it encodes. Instead, the article's just a haphazard collection of instances where the name is used without any meaningful discussion of background for its own sake. The POVFORK argument re Palestine also reinforces the argument that the article doesn't merit keeping as anything other than a redirect.—Biosketch (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It happened that some of the sources choosen to be put in the article use "o" not "O". Even this doesn't imply a big deal, but you can check other sources not listed there, and remeber that these sources put the phrase occupied Palestine inside a quotation mark.

The article is a stub and could be expanded, you can help if you want by adding what you beleive important "when and by whom the term was used originally or what political/cultural implications it encodes". Others may add more informations later too. 3Princip (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is that, unless capitalised, it is simply just another adjective applied to the topic of Palestine -- no different from "rocky Palestine", "mountainous Palestine" or "hot Palestine". "Hot Gossip" is a dance troupe, "hot gossip" is simply my opinion that my piece of gossip is salacious. Hrafn_Stalk 17:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And what about other sources (in the article and outside) that capitalize the term "Occupied Palestine"? there are a lot. 3Princip (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep this is an article about the name itself, which is notable quite apart from the geographic area. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alexander & Catalano

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Contostavlos v Mendahun

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

Non-notable event. This stub offers no necessary context beyond what's mentioned in Tulisa Contostavlos#Personal life (which is the only article that links to it) and has only routine coverage. Mbinebri 15:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Legal cases only merit articles when they refine points of law, are commonly discussed in law text books, etc. The story is adequately covered in Tulisa Contostavlos. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment A few thoughts - 1)The case is a High Court case and so sets a precedent for lower courts to follow. We have similar High Court privacy related articles Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers, NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) which would surely needed to be deleted if this one were?2) The case sets a precedent with regards to false denials made by claimants in such cases 3) Very few Knowledge (XXG) editors write law articles without making the situation worse 4) Due to the lag-time involved in academic publishing it may take a while for this case to appear in articles and textbooks. Francium12 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I would disagree that it sets a precedent on false denials; Tugendhat makes no statement as to decisions made as a result of the false denial, unless we mean the fact that the case continued going ahead despite that - which may or may not be significant precedent, but either way, is not something we are qualified to decide. The question ultimately comes down to nothing more than whether this passes WP:NOT#NEWS, up until qualified publications argue that it involved some element of precedent or longevity. This may be the case, and I appreciate that (as Francium notes) it may be some while before legal publications catch up with this real world event. But that is something we will correct for when the time comes: we do not keep articles in the hope that they will justify notability in the future, but instead when we can confirm they have passed the notability tests in the past.Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per Colapeninsula. "High Court case and so sets a precedent" – not really; only binding on County Courts. It's exceptional as a law student to come across a high court case worthy per se of much discussion; thus the typical case is where there is a profound effect on a particular subject matter or person. In my opinion, therefore, this would be better suited to a mention on the article(s) of the person(s) affected. Although OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at Afd, I'd look to delete NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) and Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Ironholds above. Lord Roem (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't appear to be a particularly significant or notable court case. I would say 'merge into Tulisa Contostavlos#Personal life', but there's so little content here there's really nothing to merge - that article contains all the relevant information (she successfully obtained an injunction) already. The bit about the 'Fleet Street Blues' blog is irrelevant and not worth mentioning. Robofish (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
As for 'if we delete this article, we'll have to delete Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers and NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood) as well' - firstly, one AFD discussion doesn't create precedent for others. Secondly, those cases seem to have received slightly more coverage from the mainstream media than this one did, so have a better claim to notability. Robofish (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Can't see how this court case is notable. Not significant in legal terms and only gets the coverage it does - and even then only in news media - due to the celebrity of one of the litigants. The broader issue is obviously worth mentioning on her page as part of her biography, but the case itself does very definitely not need a whole article to itself. Not a newspaper etc. N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GoImprint

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

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; borderline WP:SPAM; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Scopecreep (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Per nominator. No Google news hits, other ghits mostly self-promotional. -- Donald Albury 22:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The company is not notable. Fails WP:COMPANY specifically and WP:GNG totally. I was unable to find anything written about GoImprint in an independent source. Sources provided in the article are primary, based entirely on a press release from the company, or just mention the company as a member of a trade association. I could find nothing to support keeping the article or any way to improve it. DocTree (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was G11'ed Socking doesn't create a legitimate objection to G11. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Party Pilipinas Team G

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

I submitted the article for a Speedy Deletion last night, but the article creator is not only contesting it, they and another new user are stripping the tag and/or contesting the deletion on the talk page - so the deletion is now controversial.

My own assertion is that the notability requirements are not met - any assertion of notability is backed up almost entirely with links to Facebook and Youtube. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Per CSD G11 As unambiguous advertising. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect to the main article Party Pilipinas. The parent article needs cleanup.--Lenticel 01:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete this page. Not notable due to a lack of reliable coverage (except maybe those showbiz plugs that acts as "news" on 24 Oras's Chika Minute and the like). Any content that can salvaged can be merged to the parent article but only with reliable sources and to clean that article up. Narutolovehinata5 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. If anyone can find anything sourced to merge, I'll be happy to do a history undelete. Seraphimblade 06:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Systems' Approach (astrology)

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

I cannot find reliable third party sources to establish notability for this book or "system". If we are going to have articles solely on the basis of being cited in some other astrology books, then we would probably have a lot more articles about vedic astrology books. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete No indication of notability. HOwever, if sources are found, lots of work needs to be done on the article to make it NPOV.JoelWhy (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect back to author's article, from whence it came. Unless someone is going to reference those various claims (I've marked them with cn tags) before the AfD ends. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

PSSI Jateng

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

no evidence of notability, this is should be part of PSSI, no reliable source *Annas* (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Vilour Sport

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

Is this advertising?. Self published, no reliable source (only facebook), no verifiable. No evidence of notability? *Annas* (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as advertisement. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a natural propensity to look

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

Article of a company whose name is not mentioned, looks like an advertisement and is in a promotional tone. Possible copyright violation, but a Google search of the first sentence does not show anything. jfd34 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete as G11, blatant promotion. It looks like a thinly-veiled advertisement for the "Date Ideas" website it links to, and even if there were no external links, the entire article is promoting a point of view. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

MyNation Foundation

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

There are numerous problems here:

MyNation Foundation is a website and a Yahoo group, not an NGO. It is, however, associated with the Protect Indian Family Foundation, which is a real NGO.
The site appears to fail both Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web) and Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies). I couldn't find a single reliable source that discusses the site/organization, although I did find one paper in Google Scholar that mentions it in a footnote.
The article has no sources other than the site itself.
The article is strongly POV, for example, referring to anti-dowry laws in India as "Gender Biased Laws" and "Legal Terrorism".

Kaldari (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The author of the article has offered this page as a source about the organization, but I was not able to find any coverage at that URL (which is from a "publish your own news" site). It mentions FOX News on the page, but I wasn't able to find any mention of the organization by searching the FOX News site either. I've asked the author to reply further here. Kaldari (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Like the nominator I couldn't find coverage in reliable sources, so notability has not been established. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Around The Globe 08:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. There are two independent arguments for deletion: WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:COPYVIO. There is clearly no consensus about the first argument. But Moonriddengirl has laid out a prima facie persuasive case for the second argument (even though I myself am not sure that I agree with it), and in this respect, almost all "keep" opinions do not address her analysis but at best only assert that the list is not a copyright violation, without giving reasons why. These arguments are not persuasive and must therefore be discounted. On the basis of the present discussion, the copyright concerns must take precedence, but it may well be that a more thorough discussion of this aspect of the case at deletion review might come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 05:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is so much primary material reproduced here that I'm worried it has fallen into WP:COPYVIO territory. It certainly doesn't fall under fair use because it's likely that this much text would impact the copyright holder's ability to sell the work. There's also not a single reference supporting the topic of the list's notability. Why are the monsters of D&D so notable that there's a list of all of them? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - While this deletion request may have merit - many would argue that Knowledge (XXG) is amongst it many facets an encyclopedia of Roleplaying games and therefore such materials should be assessed under such a lens at least for judging its extrinsic value.

However the argument that the list comprises a WP:COPYVIO is unconvincing. Unless it is claimed that the list contains texts copied verbatim -- pending a statement from a qualified opinion by WMF legal team, a DMCA take down request or a respected community member who might make a more convincing case we should avoid WP:COPYVIO as speculative. (Lack of Fair use might be demonstrable - but requires that a copyright violation already exist. Its use here to demonstrate WP:COPYVIO is a post hoc fallacy and has no bearing on this case. The article also omits technical data required for use in this type of role-playing game).

As to the point of notability - this material should be judged as an entry in a RPG encyclopedia. Since Ad&d has been deemed notable this list which is an extension of that article inherits the notability from its parent article and they should be judged together.

I could sanction removing this and similar lists on the grounds that it is a shameless promotion of a commercial product - however this fault may well be offset by the value it provides Knowledge (XXG)'s users. Anyhow this is not the current discussion. BO; talk 14:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your second point. Where does it say that notability is WP:INHERITED? AD&D is 100% notable. I can't argue with that. Some individual monsters might be notable. But are the monsters as a set notable? Also, are they notable to the extent that they are represented now, or is this list giving them WP:UNDUE weight? As for your third point, what exactly is the value to Knowledge (XXG) users and how does it offset its commercial promotion? I point again to WP:UNDUE as reference. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I have to agree with the above poster regarding any sort of copywrite violation. As to notability, it appears to have sufficient independent sourcing to me. BOZ (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same article? I count five sources for this 175+ kb list and most of the things they're citing are physical descriptions of the monsters or game guide-like details about monster stats. How does that establish notability? Do you have anything to say at all about allegations of game guide material? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  - I think the line "The article also omits technical data required for use in this type of role-playing game" demonstrated my thoughts on whether the level of "game guide material" in this article is inappropriate. Could a person running a D&D game consult only this article and still make use of monsters in this game? Only with a hefty dose of imagination and reinventing the actual game statistics, so I'd have to say no, your allegations hold no merit whatsoever. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    - I see you skillfully avoided answering the question about notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Your sarcasm is greatly appreciated. As you say, there are five sources. I have seen a great many articles kept at AFD with far poorer sorucing, so I am not sure what more you are looking for. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Two independent RS are generally considered sufficient for WP:GNG; this article currently has 3, and considering how many web pages I have seen with listings of creatures, I'm sure it would be trivial to find more. WP:GNG does not, however, prohibit one from using primary sources to expand an article. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        As I understand it, White Dwarf is not an independent source as it published original material for D&D games. Notability for lists means that the sources establish notability for the list entries as a group. Trivial mentions for 5 or so entries among more than a hundred, and partly (or entirely) from affiliated sources (at least Dragon from TSR, and White Dwarf which participated in D&D advertisment and development), certainly does not satisfyingly answer to notability concerns.
        As I see it, out of the 3 sources currently used, 1 is potentially affiliated, 1 is affiliated, and the last one, while apparently independent and reliable in itself, does notseem to provide more than 2 trivial mentions. Sangrolu, the GNG doesn't set a precise number of reliable sources, only enough so as to write a good article. Clearly, when only a handful of entries are sourced (and only to non-independent material), it's not enough.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        I disagree with your assessment there. You say only "a handful" are sourced. GNG says "multiple independent sources". I may be going for the simplest interpretation here, but multiple is two or more; "handful" generally means even more than that. Further, White Dwarf is owned by Games Workshop and has never been owned by TSR or WotC; I think that clearly qualifies as independent.
        And again, I know there have been articles in online and offline publications which have explored lists of AD&D creatures. If the concern was that more references would be helpful, the nom would have been well advised to follow the admonishments of WP:BEFORE and try putting a notability tag and maybe even digging up some more references before pulling the AfD trigger. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        Then it is only your personal view on the matter and not a "general consideration", contrary to what you claimed before. As for White Dwarf, I read in its article that "The magazine was hugely influential in the 1980s when it helped to popularise role-playing games in the UK. This included material for the 'big three' role playing games of the time: (Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, RuneQuest and Traveller". Unless I'm mistaken, "material for" means an original contribution to the game itself (ie new scenarios, etc, and not mere journalistic coverage), potentially directly licensed from TSR for the UK market, as I understand the sentence. If the magazine published authorized supplementary material for the game itself, I can't see how it could be seen as an independent publication...And actually providing sources is always more helpful than just claiming they exist.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        They are independent because they are an independent publisher. Now, if I looked at the particular articles and they are, in fact, content that appeared in the fiend folio, then in fact your supposition is correct and we should not be counting that. Now if it's an article about the game but not content for it, then I would hold that treating them as independent applies. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyvio. List includes multiple notable monsters with their own articles that have been previously kept at AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- According to the template, I count 4 individual monsters and 13 monster types as articles that still exist. And regardless of the individual monsters' notability, that notability isn't inherited up to the group as a whole, especially when that group consists of 100+ entries, meaning that only a small fraction of those monsters are notable, by your definition. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
~~Snow~~ Keep (Restored vote; this is getting silly): The article as a whole is not a WP:COPYVIO; if there is an individual passage that you have identified as a WP:COPYVIO, you need to edit it and/or address/investigate it on the talk page. As for claims of WP:GAMEGUIDE, this is (sadly) yet another misapplication of that guideline, which we are seeing way too much lately. Nothing about this article provides tips or advice about playing the game. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:GAMEGUIDE states: "An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE."
  Can you explain to me why the AfD nom would be a "misapplication" of WP:GAMEGUIDE ? It seems spot-on to me.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Well, my understanding of gameguide was more along the lines of bullet point #1 under the same section, i.e., instruction manuals. As your very quote indicates, that particular point is talking about video games. That being said, I do agree that there should be some commonality in the way that they are handled; I don't think lists complete with statistics are appropriate in an RPG article any more than they would be in a VG articles (lists of enemies complete with attributes are a common characteristic of VG gameguides). Nonetheless, RPG creatures typically have much more literary content attached to them and should be treated more like elements of literature than videogames. WP:VGSCOPE is by WikiProject Video Games and you should not be referring to it to govern RPG articles. Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Role-playing games is the governing project for RPGs. - Sangrolu (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    - I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you implying that video games should not be treated with the same weight as literature ? Even if that distinction was valid (and I don't agree with it, as I will develop in an answer to your comment at the RPG WikiProject), literary monsters do not escape notability requirements, so I can't really see your point here...Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      - I am saying 1) you should not be using one wikiproject's standards for something covered by another wikiproject and 2) that video games and tabletop games are different in their treatment of their elements, and it is fair to treat them differently. The published product for a video game is usually the video game itself; a monster might be a set of pixels and certain combat characteristics. In tabletop games, there are published books all about monsters and each of those monsters can receive extensive writing on its habitat, biology, behavior, etc. Monsters in tabletop games have a more literature-like nature to them. If there was an article like this about "creatures of Final Fantasy VI", I'd be right there with you with the delete vote, because that's the sort of thing that the VG Scope article was talking about. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        1) We're not talking about a Wikiproject but about a Knowledge (XXG) policy, whether it's a video game or not doesn't change the fact that this article reads as an "instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" 2) what matters on WP is not the nature or length of primary content, but the availability of secondary content on a subject. Video game monsters can be more notable than classic RPG monsters.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        But you're not talking about policy. The section of policy you are trying to apply here says video games. 2) I'm not referring to there RS, which we discuss above, but to the wikiproject VG guidelines you are attempting to assert applies here. They are sensible for the topic they were written for, but that topic is not tabletop RPGs. - Sangrolu (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        The policy is named "WP is not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" (doesn't mention video games), that's exactly what I'm talking about and exactly what is this list. Monsters are part of the game mecanics, and extensive description and listing of these, when no particular notability has been established, reads like a guidebook to the game, period. That is the main issue, not tabletop RPG vs video game (and your arguments about it are not convincing at all anyways...Video games enemies, "just pixels" ? What about text that extensively describes habitat, biology, behavior, stats, both in-game and in supplementary sources like booklets and databooks ? In a wide range of gamestyles, from RPG to beat'em all. You're trying to arbitrarily make up differences just for the sake of excluding tabletop RPGs from this policy, but they don't exist, tabletop RPGs play exactly the same, monsters are still part of the game's mecanics, something you have to know to win the game, which is why this article is written as an instruction manual. It doesn't need to be about video games to violate the basic principle that article are not guides to complete a task. But if it works for video games, it works for tabletop RPG, I can't see any difference, it's still about "the main actions the player does to win the game", and if this was deemed inappropriate for video games, then it's inappropriate for tabletop RGPs. Otherwise, if tabletop RPGs are exempted from this policy, then I can't see any reason why video games would not be exempted either...In the end, it's about guides to games, and whatever the form, it's still about actions that a player needs to do to win. If you can prove me that tabletop RPGs do not involve, in any case, the concepts of "actions", "player", "do", and "win", then you'll have convinced me. Otherwise, you're wasting your time).Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        I am not arbitrarily making up differences. I don't have to; the text says video games in the section that invokes lists of monsters. On the other hand, you are arbitrarily altering the scope of the wording of the policy in question. Though the letter of the policy supports me, I want to emphasize again that it's sensible that the current policy does not conflate the two, because RPGs include a body of notable works just about monsters, something that is not true in general for video games. There is nothing in this article which tells you how to play/win the game. Now if this were instructions on how to complete the Tomb of Horrors complete with a list of traps and adversaries, that would be a gameguide. As for convincing you, you've made it pretty clear that's not happening; fortunately all that matters is the consensus and the closing admin. - Sangrolu (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        I'm not "altering the scope" of anything, the policy is called "WP is not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook", in which video games are only an example. Video games aren't mentionned because they're video games, but because they are games. You're the only one altering the scope of this policy. And tabletop RPG monsters are no more notable than video game monsters. WP:GAMEGUIDE says: "But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate." This is a list of concept (enemies in D&D games) and of type of ennemies, you can't make it more of a game guide than that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Game guide, pure and simple. One can also argue that because this is a list of monsters creatively selected by TSR for their game, it is copyrightable information, and wholesale inclusion is unwarranted and considered a copyvio. A page that lists notable D&D monsters (regardless of printing) for navigation purposes is fine, but this is not. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Those believing this isn't a copyright violation, should see Knowledge (XXG):Copyright in lists. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Oh, I believe copyvio can happen. What I don't believe is that it has happened. If you believe it has happened, you need to identify where you suppose it has happened. Indeed, if you think the mere assemblage of monster names used by TSR is copyrighted, you need to read the wikilink you have provided, with regard to selection criteria for inclusion in a list. This list is very much akin to the example of "a table of 2011 Toyota vehicles including model and base manufacturer's recommended retail price." Surely Toyota's vehicles (and the marketing behind their names) were the subject of considerable "creativity", but that does not remove the list from being a matter of discovery; this is not a list of "best" AD&D monsters or anything like that. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    - The list of Toyota cars is not copyrightable - that's factual data. Names are not copyrightable, but trademarkable. The list of monsters selected by TSR to be included within the monster manuals is a creative list, as it helps to describe the type of world that the game is set in. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
      - TSR didn't make a list, however; they made complete books of detailed monster profiles, many of which derived from folk legends and myths. They selected which ones to include, but that's it, and then they alphabetized it (i.e., non-creative arrangement). So this list just copies the bare fact of selection of entries in these books—the table of contents, in other words, not any substantive creative content of the books themselves. Are we troubled that listing the characters in a novel copies the author's "selection" of the characters featured in that novel? We summarize plots, for god's sake; bare lists of elements of fiction "selected" by the author for portrayal in that fiction are surely less substantive copying than narrative. Only here this list goes even one step further towards the functional, because AD&D was a game system, not merely a creative work, and this list is of some of the game "pieces" used in play. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        We list some of the characters in a novel, because it is necessary to mention these characters in discussion of the work. But consider that the overall work is the creative elements, just the characters themselves are a small portion of it, and thus it is not wholesale copying of a list (eg it falls under fair use/non-free use). Here, we are wholly copying the table of contents of the monster manual, just to list them without comment. That's not appropriate under fair use law to start with, much less WP's non-free system.
        
        But now I will point out that you just demonstrated why this is a game guide- you call them pieces. We don't list every single component of a game system (table top or video game, or otherwise) per GAMEGUIDE/IINFO. Again, I see no reason why we can't have a master "List of notable D&D monsters" where articles for said monsters exist and have been shown notable, but to duplicate the tables - however minimal information we use - from the books is a problem that GAMEGUIDE warns against and that poises potential copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
        None of the monsters' game stats are given, which are exactly what you need to play the game, and the lack of which alone makes this list completely unable to harm or supplant the commercial value of the original. Which rebuts both the GAMEGUIDE and COPYVIO complaints. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        It doesn't matter what exactly is said about the monsters. Including them all, which only benefit those that play the game, is an example of WP:IINFO, the core of GAMEGUIDE arguments. (The Copyvio aspect is a separate matter altogether but must be considered, see below). --MASEM (t) 05:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        
        Exactly. TSR didn't make a list. That's an example of fair use. At any rate, I consider this whole COPYVIO line of reasoning specious and won't be entertaining it any longer. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        I don't think we can completely discount the possible copyvio. I've asked the en.wiki expert on the matter, Moonriddengirl, for input. If they claim there's no copyvio issue, then there's no copyvio issue to discuss further, but the GAMEGUIDE aspect is still there. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        That sounds fair enough. - Sangrolu (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Care to expand? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  - No, I'm happy simply to indicate agreement with BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Then I suppose you're happy to accept any criticisms of his opinion as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright comment. Hi. :) I was asked to comment on the copyright aspects of this. I'm not formulating this as a "keep" or "delete", because I was asked to comment.

Sangrolu mentions "fair use", and I think he's exactly right. We can only detail the contents of creative works under claim of fair use. This is true of discussion for any books and is one of the problems with articles that are only plot summary. :) So, for it to be fair use, it has to meet the factors of fair use. (1) Purpose and character: is our use transformative or simply derivative? Are we critically analyzing the book, for example, or abridging it into a compact form, like a Cliff's Notes version? I see no critical commentary here; it is a page by page index with explication which incorporates by explicit link many detailed descriptions of the TSR versions of legendary creatures and their original ones. (2) The nature of the copyrighted work. While noncreative works aren't absent protection, creative works are more protected - a fictional monster manual is highly creative. Some of the creatures are legendary, but many are not. Even many of the legendary creatures are given backstories and details which may be original to TSR and their authors. I think the book itself is creative. (3) The amount and substantiality. The more we use, the more we risk - whether that's more in "word count" or more in importance to the work. (See substantial similarity). I'm afraid that substantiality seems high - it seems as if literally every monster is included, page by page. The list of monsters is, arguably, the "heart" of the work and its reason for existence. It doesn't include the list of monster stats (which are important to game play), but in considering substantial similarity, differences do no bar a finding of infringement. I think the use is substantial, myself. (4) Effect upon work's value. In this, the courts don't just evaluate whether this specific work can or has impacted the ability of TSR to market the 1st Edition MM (or, if it is out of print, to rerelease it), but whether or not if such lists were in wide use TSR's ability to market the work would be impacted. Not only must you consider the direct market value, but also the impact on officially approved derivatives that do or may exist.

Per WP:C, we are exhorted to "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others" as "This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Knowledge (XXG)."; WP:NFCC requires that we approach fair use conservatively ("To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law."). While only a court could determine definitively, I think that this list is likely a substantial copyright problem. :/ --Moonriddengirl 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I still consider it very unlikely that any court would not call such a list fair use, the sticky thing about copyright is that you don't know what a court is going to rule until they get there. In absence of further weight of opinion of someone on the copyright team, I'm going to withdraw my keep vote on the suggestion that we be conservative on our rulings here. I'm going to stop short of suggesting a delete vote, because I still don't consider a COPYVIO case here to be too credible. My stance regarding applying the video game clause of WP:GAMEGUIDE to tabletop RPGs still applies with respect to other items that may come forth. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

After some further thought on the topic, I have reverted my vote to keep. I think that a list of creatures in a book is no more the essence of what the book is about than any of dozens of fair plot summaries for novels and movies that appear throughout Knowledge (XXG). In fact, this probably conveys much less in terms of copyrightable IP. I can see the point in being conservative, but if I applied this principle elsewhere, wikipedia would be unable to operate. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this analysis at all, in part because I don't think the bare list is in any way the "heart" of the original work. How did you analyze the content of the original works? Do you have copies, did you get it from the library, did you find scans of pages online, etc.? postdlf (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kind of a peculiar question (as I don't see what difference it makes how I accessed the original works), but as it happens, I own a couple of copies...as well as several of the first print Deities & Demigods with the withdrawn Cthulu and Melnibonean mythos. Score for me. Pays to be an early adopter. (Expanding the substance, now that I've finished my sandwich, I don't believe we can judge the fair use of this material in isolation; many of the creatures incorporate by link pages such as this one. As I indicated in my (1), this is part of my concern.) --Moonriddengirl 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this perspective Moonriddengirl. I think we can all agree that there are problems with the list as it stands now. I personally fall into the camp that it is an example of both game guide and potential copyvio and should be deleted, but other people may have other opinions. However, it is wrong to simply brush aside those concerns and reject them outright because this IS Knowledge (XXG), the 💕. This is our job as editors to address. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think it is much better to create a large master list of notable (read: monsters with stand-alone articles) monsters, in which we can indicate which books they were introduced/included in, and brief summary. This would be treated as a navigational list, and while it is a compilation of the monsters from the game, it is a selected list to support critical commentary on the individual articles, reducing the copyright concerns that Moonriddengirl brings up. It avoids being a game guide since we (most likely) don't exhaust the list. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - as non-encyclopedic content, violative of WP:GAMEGUIDE. I wrote for TSR in the day; my lawyer is in that book (literally); my copy was autographed by Gygax on the first day of issue; and even I am forced to agree that this is not encyclopedic content for a non-gamer wiki. I'd say you could make a case for a Category:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters; but not for a list article. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete obvious violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE which states "Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate". Knowledge (XXG) doesn't cover complete lists of every enemy in a game, any more than having complete lists of every student at a school, or every scheduled event in a Presidential campaign. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete, I think Moonriddengirl finally convinced me that such an exhaustive list is excessive. I don't think a valid list would necessarily have to be limited to monsters that merited their own standalone articles, but as the original form of the work is a collection of summary description of the monsters (really a kind of monster encyclopedia for the game), us doing the same without any kind of secondary source commentary or explanation or real world context is not transformative enough given the amount we copy even though we leave out the game stats and illustrations. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Care to expand? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Comparison of the real and legendary creatures used by AD&D shows how much the game has taken from history and mythology and how the game has folded existing culture into itself. Also comparison with the creatures used in other games and entertainment media will allow future historians to see how AD&D has influenced post-D&D culture. I don't see how there is enough information here to qualify as a gameguide. You certainly couldn't play a game of D&D from this page. It is more about showing how many sources reused specific monsters. Big Mac (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Having said that it should be kept, it would be nice if the article was expanded to include additional information, like the specific inspiration for each monster (if known). Something like that (showing how it fits into culture) would make the list a lot more valuable. Big Mac (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What are your arguments for keeping the article, besides the fact that you like it ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's pretty clear; he (also) disagrees with the assertion that this is a gameguide as asserted per nom. That being said, I think your bare accusations of WP:ILIKEIT are uncalled for, and would remind you to assume good faith. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith. It's perfectly factual that Big Mac doesn't mention a single policy in his too lyrical, convoluted and over-the-top defense of the article. "Future historians" and "culture folded into itself" ? Please...These kind of comments are unhelpful, because AfDs are not there for enthusiasts to praise their hobbies or favorite games/TV shows...but to see whether the articles are policy-compliant or not. Big Mac is the only one besides you to disagree with the gameguide issue, good for him, but the issue of notability and insufficient sourcing was raised, and it is with perfect good faith that I say that Big Mac's flight of lyricism completely avoids the problem. Good for him if, as a D&D fan, he considers the topic of the utmost importance, but AfDs are not there for participants to just laud the TV shows/games/comics they like.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled by your response Folken. There are two stated reasons for this AfD. Gameguide is one of them and I clearly disagreed with that. (I also think that this is not a copyright violation.) You claim that I have 'not mentioned a single policy', but then say that I 'disagree with the gameguide issue'. If you know that I disagree with the gameguide issue, which is half the arguement of the AfD what are you actually talking about? Are you saying that I need to provide a hyperlink to one of the two policies stated in the text at the top of this AfD? Or do you require people that want the article kept to type gameguide in capital letters? Big Mac (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: I have added an introduction with a secondary source, where monsters are listed as one of the basic elements of AD&D. Though it is only one source, in my opinion, this establishes notability for the subject "monsters in AD&D". Please reconsider the article in its slightly changed form. Daranios (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notability's not the issue. The issues are the possible copyright violations that this list may pose, and the fact that listing every monster in the book is a violation of being a game guide. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Glad to hear that there is no notablity issue. I do not think that the list is a copyright violation, as of the statement by Sangrolu from 12:52, 4 May 2012. Or reasons in my words: No stats are provided. The backbone of the list is comparable to an index of the respective book. As far as description summaries are present at all, half a sentence is provided for material of about one page. The list cannot replace the use of any of the books in the game. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    - While one can argue that, in considering US Fair Use as Moonriddengirl has done, that we aren't impacting the commercial use (heck, it's an old edition) and are using minimal information, there's very little transformation of the information here. Again, I counter that if we had a similarly formatted list containing only the monsters with their own articles, that list would be part of the transformational nature of the work, being a navigation aid between the various notable creatures outlined by the books. But an all-inclusive list that does little else does not possess that quality and thus a potential problem. --MASEM (t) 18:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Or let me add another approach to the copyvio side: we have recently had to deal with the various Time 100 lists that people recreated directly here. In print, these lists include the person, what they're known for, and between a paragraph to a half-page of text about their accomplishments and why they are listed. The lists on WP consists of only their names. Yet, that's considered too much inclusion, because we're recreating the whole core aspect of a creatively-selected list, and there's no transformation otherwise. Though we can talk about achieving the Time 100 on the individual person's page, as that's now a transformational use of a short snippet of the list. Here, the same applies: yes, we're not including stats or other game-level details, but we're still including the whole list of monsters in the manual without transformation of that information. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Eh. I don't think the analogy works when moving into fiction/games. There the list itself has value (and no, I don't think a court would call replicating that list a copyright problem in any case). But couldn't I use that same argument to claim that a list of characters in "Lord of the Rings" or "House" would be an NFCC problem? I'm not seeing the difference... Hobit (talk)
        I'm not sure the argument that this is a non-transformed list applies here. If Time Magazine go to the trouble of creating a list of 100 things, that would be the specific 'product' and you could argue that reproduction of the names in that list would be close to the original, but - to the best of my knowledge - TSR have never released a product called 'List of all AD&D Monsters'. I believe this list to be one that has been complied by Knowledge (XXG) editors and believe the list to be something that allows a non-D&D fan to have a look, see how many 'monsters' there are and what books they are in. I think that gives a reader a pretty good general idea of what 'monsters' (in the context of D&D) are. And I think that being able to look at an article like this to see if D&D had 10 monsters, 100 monsters or 1000 monsters can show the reader how 'big' D&D was back then. And there are internal-links to articles where the monsters are important enough to warrant their own articles, to allow a reader to surf on and discover more about the subject. Not only do TSR not loose anything by the existence of this list, they also no longer exist. And WotC loose nothing from this list either, as they are not supporting this out of print edition of D&D. So it is a valuable list for Knowledge (XXG) readers and has no negative effects on the IP owners. Big Mac (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
        And more so, I don't think the list is subject to copyright any more than a list of characters or list of actors for a show would be. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep meets WP:LIST and not a copyright problem (it's more of a directory than anything else and those are mighty hard to copyright). Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - so, the list meets the criteria for WP:LISTS, it is not a COPYVIO as the nominator claims and it is backed up with independent resources so notability is not an issue. Why are we here again? This looks like a case of IDONTLIKEIT to me. Web Warlock (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Again, it's not a notability issue. It's indiscriminate information that violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and is a possible copyvio as identified above. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - That is easy then. I can attest as someone that owns all the books listed (and as someone that is familiar with copyright issues due to my day job) I see no COPYVIO issue here. EVEN IF there were, then and AFD is not how the issue is rectified since there is plenty of text and guidelines here on Knowledge (XXG) on how to help fix COPYVIO issues. If someone thinks there is, then that section in the text needs to be pointed out. Web Warlock (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    - WW, I think the claim is that a list, even one with no text other than the list, is a violation. Not seeing it, but I think that's what Masem and others are claiming. (Masem, correct me if I'm wrong.)Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  - You've basically made two claims here (and elsewhere) but I don't see how either of them hold water.
    - For WP:GAMEGUIDE could you specify which of those 9 bullet points you are referring to? None seem to apply.
    - For the copyright claim, could you explain how this list is different than a list of characters in a TV show or book? Seems nearly identical really and I don't think you are arguing for their deletion. Could you explain how you feel this differs?

Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He's referring to bullet point #3, which includes "Detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate" (emphasis mine). Most "keep" votes suggest that it's referring specifically to video games and doesn't apply to tabletalk games, but I think that reasoning is spurious. As for copyvio, see Knowledge (XXG):Copyright in lists. As a list based on a creative work, Knowledge (XXG) is restricted in the amount of creative content that is copied. Per Moonriddengirl's comment above, this list is not transformative in its treatment of the material. It merely reproduces the list of names of monsters (and some page numbers), which is purely derivative. I see many "keep" votes which simply reject that the list is a game guide or copyvio without saying WHY they think that. Clearly, as Moonriddengirl has pointed out, there is a copyright issue here and it needs to be considered. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is possibly a copyright violation here. I'm not worried about the list itself, however - see city of iron monster list 1st ed for another example. The list of monsters and the books in which they can be found - essentially an index - that I am not worried about. There have been several created over the course of the game's existence, and there will likely be created several more. Neither TSR nor WotC have demonstrated much concern over indices to their books, and I'm pretty sure that maintaining a bibliography of where the monsters can be found in the books is not copyvio. I'm more worried about the description column - which, though fairly sanitized of direct quotes, does describe many proprietary monsters fairly well. WP:GAMEGUIDE doesn't worry me that much; this is not detailed coverage (sorry, guys, it's not; there is no mention on this list of the appropriate level for tackling these beasts, how many hit points, et cetera; the descriptions are very general). Notability is not at issue, as the book itself was highly notable, as were many of the monsters, and "notability is not temporary." The fact that someone hasn't gotten all the sources and articles to demonstrate notability for each monster, well, I'm not much concerned about that, either; that's a matter of completeness, and while I'd like to see it, that's not all that necessary. I'm more worried about the column of descriptions. I have to vote for Keep and modify and the modification is either to make sure that none of those descriptions is a direct quote from any of the books, or to flat delete the descriptions column.Marikafragen (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Axem's right, as I'm worried there's no transformative use - the purpose of this list is just to list the creatures with no attempt to provide context or insight. To contrast, a list of notable D&D monsters (read: monsters with their own pages) would not be a copyvio because in the context of discussing the monsters from an out-of-universe perspective, a navigational table like such a list would be appropriate. A list of characters from a book or tv show usually is not fully encompassing, only highlighting the major and minor characters, and generally in an out-of-universe perspective as well, thus further transforming the original work. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'm really not seeing an incomplete list somehow being transformative. I think that's a massive stretch of copyright case law. And in all cases, directory-like information generally is very very difficult to even _claim_ copyright on. I understand your arguments, but reject them as being way out of touch with copyright law. As far as a "list of enemies" goes, A) They aren't all enemies, B) it does only apply to video games and C) the same could then be applied (again) to any list of characters from any work of fiction. Guys, you are really grasping at straws and I'm really curious as to _why_. These same arguments apply to almost any major work of fiction (and yes, D&D is a major work at this point). We have character lists all over the place and the only arguments you have is that A) the list is too complete and B) it's about a game and so it's different than all other fiction? Oy Hobit (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be viewing the list in isolation; I'm not seeing it that way. I believe it is not insignificant that the list links to Glabrezu and Invisible stalker and Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) and Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons) and a great number of other articles that combine to form a reference work that seems to me strongly derivative of an existing reference work. We don't seem to be advancing knowledge or progressing the arts through the addition of new material (to paraphrase our own article on fair use), but simply to be creating a condensed reference guide of a reference guide on our own. The question of whether taking is more "substantial" when viewed across multiple articles on a single website has not yet been established, to my knowledge. If for no other reason, because of that I don't regard this as clear cut enough to recommend processing through WP:CP, but I think it's a legitimate concern. There's no critical analysis or anything else that I can see to transform this content into anything other than an abridgment. --Moonriddengirl 00:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now the concern is that we have sourced articles linked to from the list and in doing so are taking too much from the reference work? As the reference work is mostly powers, statistics and artwork and considering we cover almost none of that, I'm more than a bit skeptical. I'd also like it if those claiming copyright issues would settle on one or two issues rather than having the rest of us play "wack-a-mole" as new (and frankly novel to this discussion) objections arise. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I've made three comments and have mentioned this concern in every one I've made, I have to wonder if you've read them. --Moonriddengirl 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had read your comments earlier and then forgotten about those objections. My fault there certainly. That said, I disagree with your reading of the material. You've claimed that our listing here could/would interfere with the potential market for TSR/WoTC without explaining how that impact could even be conceived of. Further, there are things like "Spark notes" for non-public domain works (Kite Runner for example). The general bar is extensive quoting which this doesn't seem to approach. If you have case law examples in mind I'd love to hear about them. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to remember that the copyright on list issue has been something specifically addressed by the Foundation. This is not a random concern here - instead, while it is not declared as directly as the Foundation's take on non-free media, they have an interest to be more proactive than fair use law to prevent lawsuits. Granted, we only have some counsel advice to work from, and there's still room for consensus, but we need to take a stronger stance on fair use than the US law allows. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

So this may or may not be a COPYVIO based on policy that may or may not exist yet? And Exactly what parts are COPYVIO? Based on this criteria I suspect that nearly 80% of all Knowledge (XXG) should be up for AFD. Honestly this is a very weak AFD Nom and it seems that people are looking for any reason to vote DELETE on it. If you are so concerned EDIT the article. Web Warlock (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is established guidance that is spelled out in full at Knowledge (XXG):Copyright in lists (yes, an essay, but based on the WMF counsel involvement, and written by Moonriddengirl). And there's a specific reason its being contested in that there's no transformation of the original work to make the reuse of the existing copyrighted material valid under US fair use law. Is it an assured copyright violation? Of course not, but WMF plays it safe as evidenced by the NFC requirements. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Beginners Programming Language

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG; the only mention I can find of it online is very brief, passing mentions in some fairly obscure forums; no coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Previously AFD'd at WP:Articles for deletion/Beginners Programming Language, but speedy G4 was declined by an admin, since this is apparently a complete re-write with updates about a 2010 version. Scopecreep (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is notable. See this- http://bpl.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1208778384 Previous article was deleted in 2007 and it is not good to estimate BPL's current status by that. It become notable long ago in 2009. The given links show it at PC Utilities Magazine. Which is a reliable source. --Programmingfanatics (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep this looks to me like an article where the creator with a minimal guidance could demonstrate notability and significantly improve the coverage of the current article according to WP criteria. BO; talk 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What sort of notability did you have in mind? Scopecreep (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/6208/bplxw1.png See this. Entry to PC utilities is something to be called notable... --Programmingfanatics (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, yes, Version 1.0 for Windows was included on the "coverdisc" DVD included with issue #99 of PC Utilities of April 3, 2008, and this is all what they had to say about it: "Learn to create a great program in around 20 minutes with this beginners-friendly BASIC programming tool". That is not what I call coverage. --Lambiam 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It appears we have a case of a very well formatted article for a topic that is completely non-notable. There are no third-pary references that I could find other than Download.com where anybody can upload their shareware. There doesn't appear to be an active significant community based on a quick visit to the site's forum, even though this isn't necessarily an indicator of notability. I question if this Knowledge (XXG) article is intended as advertising since there is both a free and Pro version of this software, and the website also solicits Paypal donations. --NINTENDUDE 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't recognize the PC Utilities entry(dated 2009) then I seriously doubt that you are according to wikipedia policy. Notability is Notability. It have entry at PC Utilities which is an third party source. And it isn't logical to say that it have only '2 lined' coverage on PC Utilities' cover disc as it would be totally foolish an action to write full page description on cover disc. Also, why it is totally ignored? Why empty handed claims of non notiblity and that I'm advertising for it? I'm not one of programmers making BPL... Forums are inactive because of bad choice of forum software. Programmingfanatics (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability, per our notability guideline, requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" means that the sources address the subject directly in detail. I don't see that from the PC Utilities entry. Moreover, the material on the DVD related to BPL (except perhaps for the phrasing in that one-sentence coverdisc browser blurb) was provided by its creator, and thus does not qualify as being independent. --Lambiam 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

- - Comment. Any old shareware or freeware utility can be included on a PC Utilities disk -- that's the point, that's what they do. That doesn't in itself constitute notability, particularly since outside of PC Utilities, there is absolutely no mention of this software anywhere. I couldn't dig up any reviews or anything. The existence of articles such as that, if they can be found, would make a cause for notability. As for the advertising claim, I was simply speculated that the page was created for advertising purposes. Although product marketing material is definitely grounds for article deletion, I don't see that here. I do speculate, however, that this Knowledge (XXG) article itself is intended to create notability for the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendude64 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete WP:GNG —Ruud 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry Programmingfanatics but I have to agree with the other delete !voters here. A 2 line entry on a DVD Shovelware index isn't going to cut it. We need news articles and reviews about this software. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay... Than fell free to delete... --Programmingfanatics (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. If anyone needs the history to do a transwiki let me know, I'd be happy to provide it. Seraphimblade 07:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Karigars

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

Article serves only to define a common Urdu word Makeishura (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm under the impression that this article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Secret of success (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak Delete It is just translation of Artisan in Hindi and need not be kept, but its translation can be added to the article of artisan. Chitransh Gaurav 07:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki Sounds a lot like a definition. maybe we can transwiki it to Wiktionary? -- The Determinator p t c 16:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Does Wiktionary also accept transliterated words? For Urdu, I only see entries written in the Urdu alphabet. This word is not in the English Wiktionary, but the related word کار (kâr) is, as is the Persian version کارگر (kârgar) of this word. It is also not in the Urdu Wiktionary, at least not as a stand-alone noun, but it does occur as part of an idiom: اِٹاوے کا کاریگر. By the way, the article title karigars is an English-style plural; the singular is karigar. Of course, this is also a Hindi word, written कारीगर in Devanagari, which is also not listed in the English Wiktionary. --Lambiam 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep Yash t 101 09:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

A List Apart

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

lacks notability Mathew5000 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clean up and keep. Just looking for five minutes, I see a couple articles (, ) and many books (, , , , , , , ) that verify that the article is notable as a leading publication for Web designers and programmers. It easily passes the WP:WEB requirements. Steven Walling • talk 01:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Low quality article but sufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep It seems quite well-respected and popular and while the article needs external sources, the ones provided above are sufficient and should be transferred to the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep : For many years, one of the most widely read and respected periodicals of contemporary web design. Many articles published in A List Apart have been extremely influential. Not even a close judgment call; this is probably the leading web design periodical of the past decade. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep: Doesn't lack notability. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Here's some sources that have been added to the article:

Zeldman, Jeffrey; Marcotte, Ethan (2010). Designing With Web Standards. New Riders. Pages 53-56. Accessed May 2, 2012. ISBN 9780321616951
Gomez-Palacio, Bryony; Vit Armin (2009). Graphic Design, Referenced: A Visual Guide to the Language, Applications and History of Graphic Design. Rockport Publishers, Inc. Page 114. Accessed May 2, 2012. ISBN 9781592534470
Gardner Susannah; Birley, Shane (2012). Blogging For Dummies. Wiley Publishing Co. Page 363. Accessed May 2, 2012. ISBN 9780470230176

—Northamerica1000 05:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was merge to Pivotal Labs. I think the consensus call for the compromise solution of a merge here DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pivotal Tracker

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

I do not believe this product has lasting notability. Its references do not rise above the standard noise of a highly saturated market.

The articles creator, Casey Armstrong (talk · contribs) contested my original prod; this user has a major conflict of interest. OSborn _contribs. 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you OSborn for the additional information. I misunderstood some of the information and thought after I added additional 3rd party articles that the proper next step would be removing the Deletion Notice. I do not have a major COI and as I mentioned, all information I've provided is unbiased and cited. I've included articles from sites such as GigaOm and EMC's actual business webpage, along with Google listings. Google even uses the product in question. Please let me know if you have more questions and I'll respond in a timely fashion. If there is a better place to respond to your requests, please let me know. Thanks. Casey Armstrong 23 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

It is very clear from a search of your username on Bing or Google that you have a conflict of interest on this subject. My concern is that the article does not establish that this product is notable -- what sources exist look to be the standard noise for any product in what is a very highly saturated field. OSborn _contribs. 23:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the "standard noise"? The sources are sufficient under policy. There is no rule regarding fields' levels of saturation. Andrevan@ 00:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(I have been busy in real life which resulted in not answering this) Notability policy requires significant coverage, and I don't think that exists here. The sources I've seen look like the standard minor coverage that products in this field seem to receive. OSborn _contribs. 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom and it is SPAMish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep or merge with Pivotal Labs, a division of EMC Corporation. Notable: A brief read of WP:COI does not suggest deleting articles created by users with COIs is merited if they are otherwise notable. There is no policy about market saturation as it relates to references, one need only have multiple independent significant references, which it certainly does. Andrevan@ 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Pivotable is established and well known in it's industry. According to various sources Pivotal has been acquired by a Fortune 500 (EMC) but will be run as an independent unit so Pivotal is not a Product of EMC. Doesn't deserve a delete but I do agree with Andrevan that this makes more sense as a merge with Pivotal Labs since it is a Product of theirs.

Chatterboxer (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

merge and redirect to Pivotal Labs as per Andrevan. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep with massive rewrite and/or Merge. Casey Armstrong (talk · contribs) has a clear and obvious COI. He should enjoin himself from any further editing on this subject. The article is also a blatant puff piece which needs to be rewritten from a WP:NPOV. That being said, the program is of sufficient notability to merit an article, as evidenced by a number of independent third-party citations. Perhaps out of scope for this AFD, I don't think there is any justification for a distinct Pivotal Labs article, both because PivotalTracker seems to be their only commercial product and because they no longer exist as a separate company. Full disclosure: I use Pivotal Tracker myself, and I'm also an ex-EMC employee (gone for a couple of years, and in a totally different division). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

They still exist as a separate unit of EMC much as VMWare does. Andrevan@ 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect. I never like articles started and maintained by editors with clear COI. There is some salvagable value here, which calls for a merge. smooth00₇ (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep Yash t 101 09:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Coxs Creek (Belfield, New South Wales)

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

Considering its short length and its description as a storm drain, it's hard to see how this could be notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep but perhaps merge into Cooks River. I am guessing it wasn't originally a storm drain but rather a natural watercourse that has been "improved" by concreting it over. I reckon sources could be found if someone was interested in looking. In the short term a merge and redirect to Cooks River may be the best course of action. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep some work and it is much improved. I'd go further but my net connection is a bit 20th century. There seems ample written about it for a good article on it separate from the main river. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - the Green and Golden Bell Frog issue makes it pretty notable - this is a high-profile endangered species. Funny, we were talking about this on an environmental excursion today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per commenters above. --99of9 (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 17:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

3rd World (movie)

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

No indication of notability עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: "The cruicfixion scene is real." Appears to be a hoax. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete Lack of coverage fails WP:NF. "3rd World" is a terrible choice for a film title if one expects to not have thousands of false positives in a search. In narrowing choices, I included the year of "selection" and the year of "screening" at the Thessaloniki Film Festival and included searches which included director and the three writers. It seems director Blioumis placed a trailer in October 2011, and the work looks promising. But as there is no additional news, the promise has not been kept. Schmidt, 03:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Avalon (band). ItsZippy 17:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Amy McBride Richardson

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. West Eddy (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom: no indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her role in the band that would require a separate article; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by page's creator, though that on its own isn't sufficient grounds for deletion. Scopecreep (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Question, why not just redirect to Avalon (band), as recommended in WP:MUSICBIO? --kelapstick 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge with or redirect to Avalon (band) article. No notability from WP:RS except as a member of the group. Citation to shoutlife.com now says, "This account has been canceled or deleted." Author's WP:COI is obvious; article may be self promotion. DocTree (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep Yash t 101 02:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

List of United States tornadoes in May 2012

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

Do we need a single article for only record of a month? It should be merged with some other article Yash t 101 02:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Compared to all the other articles in Template:2012 Tornado Months, Template:2011 Tornado Months, etc? Ks0stm 02:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (no merge). May is the most active tornado month in the US, statistically. I would be highly surprised if this list stays small. All in all the worst that could happen (or best, depending on your perspective) is the entire month busts activity wise and we have to combine it with the list for June, and that decision can be determined at the beginning of June. Ks0stm 02:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. The tornado project has a good thing going. I don't think it should be disrupted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep no real reason to delete. Yasht, please be open-minded about articles. WP is not paper. And even then, if you think it should be merged, AFD is not the best place for such discussion. Y E 02:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Danijal Brković

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

PROD contested by SirEdimon (talk · contribs) with the explanation "Brković played 13 matches in a fully professional league that guarantees spots to UEFA competitions including Champions League and Europa League, that is, he has notability". However, the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is actually not fully pro, as according to WP:FPL. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. This footballer has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. As such, the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I don't understand your criteria. The Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is not a fully professional league (despite their teams play the main UEFA competitions) and the Cypriot First Division, Egyptian Premier League, S.League, Hong Kong First Division League are, for example, considered fully profesional. To me you just want to delete this article, in fact I do not know why this thread, anyway you always find a way to delete the item that you want to delete. SirEdimon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure I understand the undertones of this statement: "you always find a way to delete the item that you want to delete". If I were wrong in nominating the articles for deletion that I have then they wouldn't have been deleted, quite simply. If the guidelines I cite when proposing articles for deletion are incorrect, irrelevant or whatever then other users would have pointed this out and !voted keep. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by this comment; it's not like I have any control over how other users !vote, so I'm not quite sure how I "always find a way" to get articles deleted. Also, I'd like to clarify that a team competing in a UEFA competition has no bearing whatsoever on the professional status of that team's league. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My friend I have nothing against you. When I say "you" I refer to the editors in general. I just don't understand the criteria to delete this article, and sometimes it seems that you (the editors) just want to delete the article. It seems that you (the editors) don't to increase this encyclopedia.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of us actually follow Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines and whether we like to "increase this encyclopedia" or not is irrelevant. I personally like to increase this encyclopedia by quality, if you don't mind. – Kosm1 fent 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete – fails WP:NFOOTY, as the player didn't play in a fully professional league. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant media coverage. – Kosm1 fent 21:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 07:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ray Van Ness

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this talented voice under WP:GNG or WP:ENT. There is a bit of reliable evidence for him, I've added a book which lists him at the bottom of a list of several hundred other credited actors, but I've seen nothing in the way of in-depth coverage, nor a significant role. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker 21:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this individual to establish notability. I'll also note that the book noted in the nomination is Who Was Who on Tv, Volume 1 published by Xlibris, a self-publishing company so it's questionable as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to MyNetworkTV_telenovelas where he is mentioned. Otherwise, insufficient coverage for his own aricle.Marikafragen (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Invensis Technologies

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

The original author reduced this article to one sentence, possibly in an attempt to get it deleted. I have restored the article to its status before the author's blanking, but in deference to the author I am nominating the article for deletion. My own opinion is to delete it based on the multiple issues raised and possible lack of notability. Chidon01 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - couldn't find any RS, only press releases, job offers, and directory links. mabdul 14:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - The sources given don't show notability (one doesn't even mention the company), and I wasn't able to find any other refs. No sources = no article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete: No notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. ItsZippy 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hit Squad

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

Sources make little to no mention of the Hit Squad. The individual members are notable, but I could find nothing on the Hit Squad itself. Hit Squad does not appear to have done anything — no singles, videos, albums, etc. with the Hit Squad proper — making them not individually notable. A sentence at the end states that they reunited and plan to do an album, but as far as I can see, nothing has come of this. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

ETA: They did reunite in 2012, but it seems to be a one-time thing still. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- There was an album: http://www.allmusic.com/album/zero-tolerance-r719109 MrBlondNYC (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC) (article creator)
  - Still on the fence as that's only one reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    - How about these?: MTV iTunes MrBlondNYC (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:BAND#6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Aside from that, they have also received non-trivial, independent coverage here and here. --sparkl_!sm 07:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also, every cited periodical (The Source, MTV, XXL, Village Voice) makes numerous mentions of Hit Squad. The statement "little to no mention" is inaccurate. MrBlondNYC (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2012 (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) 02:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BAND#6: EPMD and Redman (rapper) are notable, other members have WP pages with varying degrees of notability established. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep However reluctant I may be, I judge that Hit Squad meets WP:GNG within the hip-hop/rap niche. DocTree (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 17:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Matotumba

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

This is a long unreferenced article, but I found no notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Chutznik (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Plenty of self-coverage, but no independent sources in the first few pages on Google search. Looks like self-promo.Marikafragen (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Soft delete - limited discussion, but no opposition to delete. ItsZippy 17:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Doug Moran (executive)

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

Author and an upper middle-manager for the Government of Virginia. He started a "self-help for leaders" (my words) business and published a book on the same topic. Three references are to the book and the other two references are written by Moran. Unable to find any other reliable refs that talk about him. Did find interviews, blogs and the like. Creating editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry, but the puppetmaster was into music articles. Prod was contest for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete I couldn't find anything to prove notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Temple University#Technology. History can be restored if ever necessary. Sandstein 05:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

TECH Center

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

Fails WP:N. Subject is nothing more than a university computer lab. No relevant sources could be found for this to retain its own article. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some sources out there to suggest that this might be a bit more than the typical run-of-the-mill campus computer center, e.g. ; maybe an edit-history-preserving redirect to Temple University#Technology, where this facility is already discussed, would be more appropriate than a straight deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or coverage to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. as the consensus says, existence is not notability ; we are not a directory DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The International Relations Review

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

Undergrad publication that lacks coverage in independent sources. No sign of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You caught the publication at a difficult time to defend itself from this - it is registered (and archived) at the Library of Congress, but the editors are in the process of re-sending the physical print copies, which were seemingly not received in the first mailing. It would be easy to point to this if the LoC had the archive up, but it is still in-progress. This would count as verifiable, permament, and independent. 130.64.67.14 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, giving the IP visitor the benefit of the doubt. Chutznik (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- But the ip editor has not pointed to anything that would make the publication notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, sorry - I am the page creator. I can see the concerns about notability, but like he/she said above, the journal is in the LoC (in one form or another). Plus, you can tell they've kept the page (and the publication) up-to-date and professional. It may be on the fence in terms of notability, but it should always err on the side of keeping when it is a complete, well-kept and informative article. Removal would surely make W worse, not better. Afacini (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:PRETTY and WP:NOHARM. And who is they, WP:COI? duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  - My arguments aren't that it's "just fine" so leave it, they're that it's clearly an informative, beneficial article to Knowledge (XXG). WP:BURO As an editor, you need to be subjective. You are lobbying for the removal of a useful article. Notability is borderline, so why lawyer it? "They" is what I assume the IP to be, the current editor(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afacini (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    - Notability has not been shown to be borderline, notibility is not here. Plus WP:ITSUSEFUL. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Sending something to the Library of Congress does not make it notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if notability rises in the future. Seraphimblade 07:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambrosia Kelley

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

unsourced blp, doesn't seem to be notable Jac16888 16:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak Delete (or redirect, see below) - Added a couple verifying sources, but ... I don't see coverage which would reach WP:GNG or WP:ENT. She is mentioned in a handful of articles from the 2004 era referring to a hypothetical third installment of the Kill Bill series, but "mentioned" is, in my view, the key word here. Additional sources welcome. --joe decker 18:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I know this doesn't count for anything, but I've heard of her- and I haven't heard of many people that aren't in the things I watch, ergo, she must be at least mildly notable. --Tropzax (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment I hadn't heard of her, but Kill Bill 3, if it ever happens (and minding WP:CRYSTAL) is certainly a big deal, and she'd have some notability if her part in that and that film both came to fruition. I certainly have no problem with mentioning her at the Sequel wiink I provided above and redirecting there as an alternative to deletion, that might be preferable if additional sources are not forthcoming. --joe decker 01:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 17:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Kimberly Forsythe

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

barely sourced blp (a name in a list of names in a book and imdb style pages) of questionable notability Jac16888 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Not notable enough. Ovr'apint (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You know if the people who went around project tagging and relisting then decided to comment afterwards I feel like it could really speed up the process--Jac16888 09:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Soft Delete (Note: this is note a Delete !vote) - Considering the article did not go through a regular PROD (BLPPROD was declined) and no objections have been brought in over a week, I believe this could be deleted "as if" PROD'ed by Jac16888 and endorsed by Ovr'apint. Salvidrim! 00:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
weak delete. While there are three sources, I'm not sure about the reliability of any of them. Clearly she's voiced in several video games, but should she have her own article? I have my doubts.Marikafragen (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 17:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Navya episodes

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

List of episodes of a not so popular soap opera. Incomplete and not maintained. Trivial. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep No policy-based reason for deletion articulated, since all complaints fixable through normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you gonna make the show popular by editing? Its all trivial. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Daily shows should (in general) not have ep lists. Imagine the show runs for just five years (some run for decades) - that's over 1250 episodes of plot, and don't expect sources like director or writer for any episode. – sgeureka 09:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. Around The Globe 08:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete- I agree with Sgeureka here. Episode lists can work; Knowledge (XXG) has quite a few decent ones. But these all tend to be from popular shows with infrequently episodes, where each episode is something of an important event, and there's proper sourcing and interesting things to say about each instalment. Daily TV shows are not like that. Each day's episode tends to be just routine and so listing them all would just be a long shopping list of trivia. And the sourcing tends to be much patchier because no independent source would bother writing about each individual one. That seems to be the case here. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Sweeney (Community Leader)

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

Candidate attempting to run for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, fails general notability guidelines and WP:POLITICIAN. Removed PROD and previously Speed Deleted under WP:CSD#A7. kelapstick 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. If he ends up as a successful candidate, then he would clearly pass WP:POLITICIAN - but, failing that, all we have is a kid who was active at his high school. Good as far as it goes, but not sufficient to justify an article. The usual caveats apply, though - once he does something that indicates notability under our policies, an article might be appropriate. Good luck to him. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the article was written by the subject - User:SalemNH2 identifies the source of the photo as "Adobe Photoshop with my own picture and a preset effect" as per File:Joseph Sweeney.jpg. The same user is the primary author of the article. And that's a problem. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as an unelected local politician. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. With no personal harm meant to Mr. Sweeney, obviously. He would be well advised to save the wikicode in case he becomes notable later in life. Colipon+(Talk) 20:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Knowledge Leader Forum

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

I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources . There were no hits at all in Google News archive search. Should be deleted for failing to meet notability guidelines. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete: I found no significant independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick Carl

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

After a bit of research, this appears to fail GNG. Perhaps I'm wrong... Sarah (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete: A PSA, hooligan, school student? Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete Up-and-coming actor with a series of minor roles, mostly in unnamed parts ("School Student", "Neighborhood Kid", "Bully", etc). Wait till he gets some bigger roles and more press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete a thus far unnotable actor, as his credits would indicate that he's pretty much only appeared in bit parts and as an extra. His one "lead" role in a PSA still doesn't let him pass WP:NACTOR. Rorshacma (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. However, I'm not sure if this can be used as a precedent for treating such centers like we do high schools. A better comparison might be to organizations like Kaplan, Inc. or The Princeton Review that specialize in test preparation. My opinion is that for the time being future AFDs on this coaching center or others like it should be considered on a case by case basis and WP:N considered. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bansal Tutorials

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

This was nominated for speedy as promotional, but it seemed purely descriptive, and I couldn't use A7, for it does indicate possible importance.

We get articles submitted on these coaching centers from time to time, from India primarily but also from other countries, and we have generally deleted them. But they are I believe important in their own countries, perhaps as important a some of the more formal parts of the educational system. The references for notability for this one are weak--just its mention in a newspaper article (there's one, not two; they're identical from different editions of the same paper.) Possibly more could be found, but most would be in sources no easily available to us. If this were a high school, we'd presumably give it the benefit of the doubt, but I think I'd like a confirmation of what we do about these. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
weak keep - having read the comments by DGG, noting that large numbers of high schools and secondary schools in US and UK are on WP, I agree that this article is factual and not promotional. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep on the basis of the rather low standard we have set with high schools, middle schools, etc. It is a rather sad justification but does promote a more level playing field. Stormbay (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak Keep as this article about bansal tutorials is about an institution, i think it should be kept as articles of many other coaching institutes exist,Narayana_Group_of_Institutions, FIITJEE, etc, but its importance is still under doubt, it should be kept and more citations must be added. Chitransh Gaurav 07:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep notable but needs cleanup. Around The Globe 08:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. The discussion seemed to focus on two guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Those in favour of deletion argued that Monroe does not meet the GNG, a point never substantially challenged by those wanting to keep the article. PORNBIO was difficult, because there was not even agreement that is was an adequate guideline. Nevertheless, the consensus seemed to be that, whether or not the guideline is useful, Monroe does not pass it. The notability of certain awards was contentious and perhaps not fully resolved; however, those favouring deletion argued that the the nominations received are not sufficient to pass PORNBIO. Thus, the consensus was to delete. ItsZippy 18:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Elexis Monroe

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

A totally NN pornstar - does not even meet the not-guildeline PORNBIO Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep. Bad-faith nomination, you didn't notify the creator (me) of this, and WP:PORNBIO is still a guideline. Erpert 06:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete All sources are non-notable porn websites (attempts by the porn industry to give itself publicity). AVN award is a promotional award by porn industry. WP:PORNBIO is too lax and it's under discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#PORNBIO:_yes_or_no.3F_.28maybe.29. (same as Janet Mason's AfD, which has similar problems) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- XBIZ is a non-notable website? Since when? By the way, I find it highly interesting that you are !voting "delete" in the exact same way in the same articles that Hipocrite is bringing to AfD. Erpert 09:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You notified the world about this afd on WP:ANI. Shocker, then, that people are going to show up. Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Enric put in his vote before I did that. Erpert 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Falsehood. 06:36, 26 April 2012. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So I made a mistake. At least I'm still acting in good faith instead of bringing articles to AfD just because I have a dispute with the creator. Erpert 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete per Hipocrite/nom and Enric Naval. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
keep 3 AVN nominations is sufficient notability. Yes industry awards, but so are oscars, grammys, tonys, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Delete votes have flawed understanding of what makes an award notable. AVN is only part of and promotes the industry in the sense that they report on the industry as a trade journal and as porn critics. Besides the nominations passes the current version of PORNBIO and also under the proposed tightened version PORNBIO that is currently being discussed on Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (people). Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete, no independent coverage outside the narrow sphere of the industry's self-promotion machinery, for which the author evidently wishes to create an outpost on Knowledge (XXG). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- What? Erpert 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep Passes the proposed tightened version PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Then that tightened version is still ridiculously out of touch with project-wide standards elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

According to you, perhaps. And the article is not going to be deleted simply because you don't like WP:PORNBIO, and neither will this. Erpert 05:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:PORNBIO and MorbidThoughts. Dismas| 13:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete - WP:PORNBIO alone simply cannot sustain an article. If it does not meet the WP:GNG and does not appear to have a reasonable chance of being saved via the "sources are likely out there somewhere" argument, then it should be deleted. The practice of using the Knowledge (XXG) as free advertising for every two-bit wannabe starlet must be brought to an end. Tarc (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Article includes no reliably sourced biographical content, and, aside from the nominations listings, is sourced entirely from unreliable/promotional/vendor pages. Subject has only one AVN nomination, despite comments otherwise here, and that in a downlevel category with no discernible standards -- that the porn industry is now declaring 30-year-olds to be "milfs"/"cougars"/older women is just ersatz marketing that lacks encyclopedic significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you were paying attention, you'd notice that she has one AVN nomination and two XBIZ nominations. And what is this edit summary even supposed to mean? BTW, it isn't cool to delete an entire section of sourced material to make it look as though the person isn't notable. Erpert 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  - Erpert, the HW edit was correct and his edit summary is almost clear. A producer/director that declares that an actress that is under exclusive contract with her is the best actress in the kind of stuff that the same Nica Noelle produces is clearly a not-independent claim. Cavarrone (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    - But how do we know she was under contract at the time Noelle said that? Erpert 07:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep for me. The subject of the article not only (obviously) passes the actual PORNBIO but even passes its tightened version that is under discussion in these days (and that seems to have consensus) in reason of the multiple noms in acting/performing categories (no scene award nor group award categories). Also passes the ANYBIO#1 requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 01:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. All the delete votes are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT or otherwise faulty reasoning.SPNic (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting contribution history there; a contributor of nothing but one-liner "per user x" and "those delete votes suck", never really providing an actual reason for retention just as the entrty for this AfD is empty. A WP:SPA in spirit if not in technicality. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're a jerk. It's becoming more and more obvious that this needs to be closed.SPNic (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In shorthand, we might call this a WP:ILIKEIT argument, eh? Carrite (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - my heart bleeds for this individual but the only discernible purpose of this article is a shameless promotion of a foreign commercial interest. This can easily be evidence by the fact that this apparent bio excludes the individual's name, only packaging branding information and promotions of adult only product. Last but not least the brand in question is of sub standard quality having failed to receive any industry endorsements from the AVN. I would suggest removing the article on the grounds that this is a non notable sub-standard brand and is deceptive and manipulative to try to include it in wikipedia. In this case none of the sources are WP:RS sources as they are tainted by commercial/promotional concerns and cannot be creadibly used to demonstrate WP:V. BO; talk 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Not the subject of multiple, substantial, independent pieces of published coverage in so-called reliable sources. The so-called AVN awards are of interest only to the AVN and should no more provide a free pass here than the Footwear News awards should provide a free pass to minor shoe company executives. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Carrite, please read the revamped WP:PORNBIO. She passes it (in fact, she passed the old version). Erpert 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AVN awards are still notable under PORNBIO. Notability is based on what the guidelines are, not according to what the voter thinks they should be.SPNic (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Abject failure of GNG. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Simply doesn't meet the WP:PORNBIO standards. Only has 3 nominations, which isn't nearly close enough to overlook that she's never won an award. --NINTENDUDE 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. The sources are insufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. None of the sources support notability. None contain independent coverage in prose. The interviews are promotion, and primary, and first person coverage. YouTube is not an acceptable source for supporting notability. Several sources support facts, but we are not a database. Sources on the awards say nothing in the form of commentary on the person. Three nominations and no wins for industry-promoting awards is a very weak claim for notability. There is no sign that any other reputable source has taken notice. The references are little more than a link farm. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Please note that PORNBIO says, "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times" - neither is true (she was nominated for three different awards, which does not qualify. Admittedly a technicality, but remember that PORNBIO is not really a standard - it's under discussion and in dispute). It also says, "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent." None is true, or at least none are supported by the article or its references. It also says, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." This is ALSO not true, or at least not supported by the article. I think she doesn't meet WP:GNG, either. Marikafragen (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 14:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deep South Entertainment

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

Deprodded with rationale of "A record company is judged by what notable artists it has discovered, and many blue links are there." However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The article only says that they "handl over the years careers" of the artists, but this incredibly vague claim is "supported" by references to those artists' websites, none of which mention Deep South in any way. Searching the artists' names + Deep South Entertainment found no substantial sources at all.

Furthermore, it is not a record label but a management firm. The article has been heavily refbombed with press releases, primary sources and local tangential mentions but nothing of substance. A search in Google News turned up only press releases. Finally, the article was made by an SPA whose name has Deep South in it. Ten Pound Hammer • 00:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 00:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete First, I strongly agree that simply being associated with major acts does not constitute notability. A major recording act has a huge number of music business entities that touch on its business. They can't all be automatically notable. Secondly, current sourcing is clearly insufficient for any argument towards notability. Third, I can't find anything better. Major music business entities that have contributed significant, notable accomplishments to the development or success of major recording artists simply do not fly under the radar like this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Consider: Hi. I'm an employee at Deep South Entertainment in Raleigh, North Carolina. As a company, it is our intention to comply with wikipedia's guidelines regarding our presence on wikipedia. At the moment, it seems that we could make some changes to ensure compliance going forward.

In regard to the "notability" concerns mentioned, we would be happy to distinguish between current and former clients to provide a sense of clarity into the company's past and present affiliations. As for our description as a "Record Label" or "Management Firm", we do not take issue with changing the terminology in the article in question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.222.154 (talk • contribs)

Appreciate the forthrightness and willingness to help improve the article. Let me just clarify what's really needed. We need to see some evidence of independent, reliable coverage of DSE. Basically, any third-party coverage in a reliable source (magazine, newspaper, online or offline, whatever). The coverage should ideally be significant -- that is, more than a passing mention. In other words, an article covering one of your artists that merely mentions "They are represented by Deep South Entertainment" without discussing your company won't necessarily help. Hope that helps, and trust me that there are people who will also look for sources on your behalf! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment - There's a related article for deletion discussion occurring for the Raleigh Downtown Live article, located here: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Raleigh Downtown Live. Northamerica1000 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep They have a lot of notable bands they discovered and manage, so they are notable. Notability is based on accomplishments. You don't need to find coverage to prove to you they have done something notable, when you can just use common sense. Dream Focus 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alas, common sense is not considered a reliable source under Knowledge (XXG) policies. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  - WP:IAR is a policy. The rules exist for a purpose. Knowledge (XXG) is not a moot court with strict rules. See WP:BUREAUCRACY. Dream Focus 17:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
    - I'm sorry, did you just cite "ignore all rules" and then in the very next sentence write "the rules exist for a purpose"? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Also it is SPAMish since it is created by what is essentially an SPA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
merge and keep Although the concert series seems to have been their major production, since it is notable in its own right, though just barely, they are notable for other things also, this is the article to use,with a redirect from the other. It was folly to try to write two articles when notability is borderline for either, a promotional practice which often attracts unfavorable attention. Although I agree with alan that it;'s still Spammish, that's just a matter of editing. Another proof that as a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without WP:Conflict of Interest. Despite that, we should keep what we can rescue of their work. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge to where? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think he is referring to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Raleigh Downtown Live.--Milowent • 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll adopt the curious position -- is this allowed? -- of being fine with merging content from this article to the Raleigh Downtown Live article if the latter is kept. While I don't think the article on the concert series should be kept, either, it's got a much better case for notability than the article on Deep South Entertainment. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete same reasons as the closely-related Raleigh Downtown Live: lack of coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
delete complete lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - What about this source? Menconi, David. "Deep South Goes North." The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) September 5, 2000: 1E, 3E. Anyone have access to it? Northamerica1000 02:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Michelle Shields

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

Actress who receives the briefest of mentions in four articles that I can find on Frankenstein: Day of the Beast, the biggest (released) movie that she has worked on so far. However, I can not find any significant coverage of her, or coverage outside the context of this one film. Perhaps one day, but not yet... Livit⇑/_What? 20:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick google search yields hundreds of results for this person, especially as "michelle shields actress" hence why this page was created. Going very deep in google results with success still. Most talk doesn't focus on the one particular film, which it shouldn't. More articles are available. Most of the initial results are of interviews from magazines, webzines, etc. This person is also attached to several big name horror conventions as a guest this year alone in CA, IN, IL, etc. Also attached next to a remake of a well known franchise. The reason above stating non-significant coverage is a non reason to remove this page if there are any. While there are reasons to be critical of articles that potentially go up, this doesn't seem like one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johneoc1 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So add some of those references to the article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete - If Shields has appeared in significant roles in multiple notable films, she would meet WP:NACTOR. She has been in a major role in Frankenstein: Day of the Beast, while it is questionable whether her role in Sister Mary was significant (I can't find reliable sources to convince me it was). This may simply be a case of an article written too soon for a young up-and-coming actor, but it won't take much in the way of reliable sources to convince me to change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Added a few references for appearances and film. Will be finding more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johneoc1 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be too soon. Merge to Frankenstein: Day of the Beast, without prejudice to recreation if she is shown to meet WP:NACTOR at a later date. - Jorgath (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Shields appears to be notable among the niche market in which she acts. Based on citations, she is a frequent topic of blogs in the market and a featured guest at various conventions. Sourcing appears to be from blogs, rather than the desirable reliable sources, but in some niche markets (such as 'B' horror films), blogs are the most reliable sources available. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Question (not intended as badgering)—If reliable sources for a particular topic do not exist, do we give a free pass to use unreliable sources to prove notability? Or is that just just further proof that the topic is non-notable? Livit⇑/_What? 14:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If she is notable someone somewhere, even if it is a tiny circulation specialist magazine, would have noticed. If the author can only find a couple of blogs and a couple of Facebook pages (big no-no!) then she is probably off the 'notability' radar! Sionk (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Naseem Vicky

AfDs for this article:

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

Was tempting to suggest CSD G4 here, but there are some differences in the article. What there's not, since the previous AfD discussion 8 months ago, is new sources that get to the crux of evidencing notability, at least ones I can find. Additional sources welcomed, as always, note that the first (not the second) AfD pinned its hopes on putative Urdu sources, which may still be in existence. joe decker 03:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep I looked at the urdu sources and I'd say that he is notable. He has WP:RSs they are just in urdu. Someone needs to work on this article, maybe someone from Knowledge (XXG):Pakistan can help us out with this. The Determinator p t c 16:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you point me at some of those? Perhaps if I can take a look, I'd be open to withdrawing the nom. --joe decker 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

After a careful review of what appeared to be WP:RSs are just blogs, forums and listings of him as a actor in different shows. Although I still think it's a weak keep. Here's the idea that I got from looking for WP:RS he has taken part in a lot of stage shows, so he has a big enough following. So, according to Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Entertainers he is notable and therefore a keep. I still see your point with verifiability. The Determinator p t c 15:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Subject is a notable artist per WP:ENTERTAINER (, , ). --SMS 20:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Per sources given by SMS. That is good enough verification for notability. Mar4d (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ItsZippy 18:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barry Walker

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

Does not meet the criteria for notability under WP:ACADEMIC. West Eddy (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Chair (current or former) of a major Canadian University. Per Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Joy Romero. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Joy Romero, and she held more positions.West Eddy (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete Where does "chair of the governing council" fit into WP:ACADEMIC? EEng (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak delete. I can't find enough sourcing independent of Athabasca to support an article or pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Arguments on the keep side are not convincing. Awards aren't major enough to confer notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument. Ultimately, it fails WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 15:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Clemson Tigeroar

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

Lacks the significant coverage from multiple independent and verifiable sources needed to pass the GNG. Previously deleted at Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Tigeroar. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no one is really responding I'll elaborate a bit more. The pages from the school website and newspaper are certainly not independent. The listings on a capella competition sites do not provide substantial coverage and really aren't the type of sources that show notability. The review on the "The Recorded A Cappella Review Board" is better, but it does not really seem to be the type of source that fits Knowledge (XXG)'s MUSIC requirements for reviews that bestow notability on their subject.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That being said, Clemson Tigeroar could probably be logically redirected to the school's page (or a more specific section on groups). I'm not sure if the word "Tigerroar" should redirect there though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wish I had read that it had previously been deleted before I went and overhauled it! I'm not going to take a position on deletion, but I thought it should look its best to meet its maker. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, sorry for that. The issues with the article that would lead to deletion have to do more with the notability of the subject and its sourcing, not the quality, but good work on that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The extensive awards section establishes notability within its own field, as do the 2007 reviews stating that the group was already one of the best in the southeast and ready for national recognition. Believe me there are a lot less notable high school(!) (not to mention college or university) music-group articles on Knowledge (XXG). The citations in the awards and honors section gives both multiple independent third-party coverage and notability. There are over a dozen outside independent third-party sources/citations in the article. Plus the group tours across the nation, including to the west coast. Clemson is the top university (besides USC) in South Carolina, adding to the group's importance/notability. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but which awards here prove notability? I know certain awards can provide for inherent notability even if outside coverage is not enough, but I don't think any college a capella award does that, and especially not anything in something like a regional quaterfinal. And which of the sources do you consider strong enough to prove GNG worthy criteria? Certainly not the numerous listings with no substantial coverage or user reviews from lower tier websites. And without trying to sound offensive, the idea that Clemson being a top university causes its a capella groups to inherit its notability is a terrible argument.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Noting my possible bias from the cleanup work I just did on it, a quick look through Category:Collegiate a cappella groups suggests Tigeroar has a better argument for inclusion than some existing articles there. I know this is a bit of an WP:OSE argument, so if there are standards such groups are supposed to meet for inclusion, I'd appreciate being informed of them. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the issue is that the category you mention is filled with articles that really shouldn't be on here. Being the best of the worst doesn't make up for a failure to meet notability criteria.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yaksar, I think your (possible) error is in using the the wrong criteria here. One does not use the criteria for adult professonal musicians when assessing articles on amateur collegiate groups. I believe you are expecting national coverage and reviews in major nationwide newspapers and periodicals. That's not going to occur with any collegiate group, musical or not. Notability must be assessed on its own terms for every category or genre or venue. The fact is, collegiate a cappella groups are an accepted and standard category of inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). It seems rather random to single out this article, which appears to establish notability, among the field of 95, and indeed in the field of 325 Category:University musical groups articles on Knowledge (XXG). You may not be aware of the upsurge in interest in, and legitimization of a cappella college (and high school) groups, particularly since, for instance, the inception of the television show Glee.

You use the same notability criteria for everyone, wether young, old, professional, collegiate, metal, a cappella, whatever. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Different sources may be covering for a university group, yes. But that does not mean at all that we lower our standards for them. Some school groups just won't make the cut and will be redirected. I mean hell, with your argument I could say that, since a school newspaper might be the only source that covers a high school cafeteria, we have to change our standards so that this cafeteria can have an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, you're wrong about coverage of collegiate groups in general. We actually do have quite a few pages on individual college groups that are very notable and have the substantial coverage in multiple independent and verifiable sources to prove it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Awards are not major, touring lacks coverage. The only independent source that provides any depth of coverage, he Recorded A Cappella Review Board, is not a reliable source. Noting satisfying WP:BAND. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, the criteria for professional adult bands does not apply for the 325 amateur Category:University musical groups. The article in question meets GNG because this amateur collegiate group has: twice appeared on the Best Of College A Cappella compilation CDs; received a CARA nomination; has an original song on annual CASA compilation CD; placed first in the 2004 SoJam competition; placed second in the South in the 2004 and 2010 ICCA competition semi-finals (meaning they are one of the top 12 college a cappella groups in the country); appeared on Voices Only compilation CDs in 2007 and 2009; produced 8 albums, one of which was a Pick of the Year Honorable Mention by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board. Softlavender (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but those are absolutely not awards that give inherent notability without coverage. If there was substantial coverage of them winning those in multiple independent and reliable sources you'd have a different case, but you don't really have an argument to stand on here. Hell, we've got awards that actually get a fair amount of coverage (like an AVN) that still aren't considered to give inherent notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, the criteria that apply to professional adult bands applies to all bands, including the 325 amateur Category:University musical groups. WP:BAND is for all bands, profesional or not, from America or Antartica, or whatever. What you point to are not indepth independent coverage, not notable compiliations, not major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Yaksar, the facts and logic do not bear you out. You don't seem to have any idea what comprises notability in college musical groups, and in particular not college a cappella groups. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not a matter of what you or I or any individual editor feels is enough to " notability in college musical groups". Unless the Knowledge (XXG) community decides to set a unique standard for the notability of such a topic it is judged based on the GNG and the suitable music notability guidelines. We can't just simply make our own criteria.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained to you why the group meets GNG: Twice appeared on the Best Of College A Cappella compilation CDs; received a CARA nomination; has an original song on annual CASA compilation CD; placed first in the 2004 SoJam competition; placed second in the South in the 2004 and 2010 ICCA competition semi-finals (meaning they are one of the top 12 college a cappella groups in the country); appeared on Voices Only compilation CDs in 2007 and 2009; produced 8 albums, one of which was a Pick of the Year Honorable Mention by the Recorded A Cappella Review Board. That's more than 10 reasons, any two of which would meet GNG. All of those are covered and verified in reliable independent sources. I think you really have to ask yourself why you are going after this one article, which clearly demonstrates notability, out of 325 other articles on college musical groups. Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And it's already been explained that those awards (and it should be noted that none of them actually seem to be the top achievement but runners up in some regard, not that it's too important) don't give notability unless the awarding is covered substantially in multiple independent verifiable and trusted sources. Hell, if being a finalist but not winner for a Pulitzer Prize isn't enough to give inherent notability, placing in a regional college music competition definitely isn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". None of the over 10 reasons you give are significant coverage so do not meet GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think college a cappella groups are so special that they get their own notability guidelines that are lower than everyone elses? duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete "One of the best is the southeast" is a vague statement of praise, not notability, and "ready for national notability" means not yet notable. Nothing more seems to be claimed. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. consensus is clear, not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

KindyNews

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and the paper isn't mentioned in any of the references given. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by page's creator, though that on its owns isn't grounds for deletion, and article's tone is no longer promotional. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi would like to speak about why I think this article should not be deleted.

KindyNews is a legitimate publication - just like the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times - The only difference being that it is small and only been in existence for a short time,Is that grounds to remove it from WIkipedia? Also, I have added references etc and the article itself has been careful not to be a "advert" but simply a statement of the publication's existence

kind regards

Karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenjackman2010 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There's an essay describing what might make a publication notable enough for inclusion at WP:Notability (media). It's not official policy, just a useful essay. Yes, your publication seems perfectly legitimate, but I can't find anything online mentioning showing what might make it notable enough for an encyclopedia article, whereas the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times get cited in countless books and in the daily media of many countries, with a significant impact on society. Scopecreep (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete Unable to find any decent refs,and none present in article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points - to respond: KindyNews is an fairly new publication and has not been around Long enough to have all the books and articles written about it that the WSJ or NYT has - both of these publications were once new too and I am sure they were also legitimate then too - even when they didn't have all the "buzz" that they enjoy today. We regularly have local Australian politicians and leaders writing in our publication and indeed several sent us letters of support when we launched - would referring to one of these letters or uploading it somewhere on the site be "notable" - it's not on a website =- but a lot of books weren't for hundreds of years before the internet arrived. KindyNews is Australian and you may not be familiar with all the local names and places over there in the US - but there is a whole community here which is. So, following from that, would :"decent refs" also apply to those coming from non-internet sources? Karenjackman2010 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Karen, I just want to respond to your feedback. The thing is, we have well-established guidelines for notability. In addition to Scopecreep's essay link, the more general text can be read here. Although non-internet sources are perfectly fine in itself, the letters you speak of are primary sources: these normally cannot be used to assert notability. I think it is easiest stated this way: Knowledge (XXG) does not come up with information by itself, it merely reports what other secondary or tertiary sources have to say about a subject. If there are no secondary or tertiary sources out there that significantly (more than 'a mention') cover KindyNews, it is best to wait until it has grown a bit and attracted enough attention to generate the coverage we need. We definitely do need you help and expertise though, so why not improve on child care related articles in the meantime? Again, thanks for joining and don't let this issue discourage you! Kind regards, Pim Rijkee (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Scopecreep, Yes I see your points and of course I would love to contribute to the existing child care related articles etc. I would also agree that once we grow we will have more coverage in other sources and with other media outlets. I wonder if the template wiki has in place for determining if this entry is valid might make valid entries INVALID though, when they are clearly not - just a thoughtKarenjackman2010 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Yes, there was a time when the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times were just getting started—and at that time neither of them were notable. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Delete My comments are on the article talk page. This article is absolutely not notable. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. The proposal to move the article to a new name can be discussed on the article's talk page. ItsZippy 18:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Irwin

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

Another tragic but standard missing person case. "References" are largely news items rather than anything that establishes notability. Dmol (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG trough reliable sourcing and beyond a one - two days standard coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The story has been covered significantly both locally and nationally, (national news coverage, television appearances)- I believe this satisfies WP:GNG
Rename Rename to "The Disappearance of Lisa Irwin" Laladoodle92 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Applied Information Technology in Chalmers University of Technology

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

Article looks like an advertisement, which is a violaton of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Not in neutral point of view. Notability is also a concern (educational courses or degrees are not eligible for an article on Knowledge (XXG) just because the university or educational institution is notable, the course/degree itself has to be notable and covered by reliable and independent sources). Article consists of 2 references, both are from the university's official website. jfd34 (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Agreed that it reads like an ad. However, it seems to be part of a University program. I see above that this does not make it notable...what does? It can be given a neutral tone if there is sufficient notability. Stormbay (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Reads like a university prospectus. No evidence that the program itself is notable and deserving of a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of its association with the and the notability of the parent organizatin, the Chalmers University of Technology. It does need a serious rewrite. If no one steps up on that front, a redirect to Chalmers University of Technology would be a logical solution. Stormbay (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of parent is not a valid argument as notability is not inherited. Ipsign (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong Delete Consensus has been that it takes very strong evidence to justify a separate article on an individual program in a university. What's basically the standard is world-wide fame.This isn't even a doctoral program, and is therefore nowhere at all near that level. It should get a mention but a mention only in the article on the university but nothing further, so there isn't really anything to merge. and it isn't a useful redirect, nobody would look for it independently of the university. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete as fatally failing WP:GNG. Ipsign (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Head of government of Korea

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

An eclectic list that a) comprises a range of different positions that have been questionably translated as "Prime Minister" and b) where the title is appropriate, is redundant to List of Prime Ministers of South Korea, List of Premiers of North Korea, and List of Prime Ministers of Korea. If it's kept, it should be left as a disambig page between those three pages. Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't delete. I have no opinion about the best format, but if you don't want it to remain in its present form, convert it into a disambiguation page per the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Dabify per nom.--Lenticel 02:58, 25 April 2012 (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) 00:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination. I'll boldly dabify it. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Classic Concert Records

AfDs for this article:

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The comments in the 2007 AfD were not based on guidelines. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete ~ Its hardly been touced in six years, and when smackbot is the top contributor, I think its safe to say nobody will miss this stub, which, per SL93, does not pass WP:CORP. — GabeMc (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not finding any significant cvoerage, either. This record label does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Gongshow 01:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 01:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow 01:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete without prejudice. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Digimortal (band)

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

I found no notability. This band fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2012 (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) 00:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Donatella Gambini

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

unsourced blp, little to actually suggest notability Jac16888 16:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Italian interwiki cites a printed source and is a rather extensive article, so I would rather keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I added a source which confirms she was in Amarcord and calls her "an unforgettable character", but I was pretty much unable to find any other online sources beyond lists of cast.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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) 00:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The7stars

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

1. Notability - are those 2 PR on PR inside story articles really good enough? (consider your soul before answering) 2. spam/advert/COI 3. userfy until good enough Widefox (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn due to added refs. Widefox (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep The7stars appears to be a highly notable media agency that has received tons of news coverage spanning years. I have added some info and references to the article to exhibit this. Silver seren 01:43, 27 April 2012 (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) 00:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:GNG, per: , and . Good job User:Silver seren in finding sources and taking the time to add them to the article. Northamerica1000 06:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Newly added links establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Medan International School

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

Fails the guidelines for schools. Has grades 1-10, which makes it an Elementary/Middle school, not a senior high school as required for an automatic presumption of notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - educates to International Baccalaureate which is sufficient to qualify as a high school. No reason to suppose that, with a diligent search for local and offline sources that WP:ORG cannot be met. TerriersFan (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Consensus is that verified secondary schools (and this clearly is a secondary school, since it educates to age 16) are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Victor Lau

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in the media of Lau himself. West Eddy (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Leader of a registered political party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The user might also be a male like the subject of this article, possibly be Canadian, and could well also like italian salad dressing just like the subject of this article. Unless there is a financial relationship between the editor and the party, this is not worthy of being mentioned. We don't call "Conflict of Interest — he's a Democrat!" or "Conflict of Interest — she's a Conservative!" as a means of discrediting arguments in this forum. This is an examination of whether an article topic is the subject meets the General Notability Guideline, being the subject of multiple, substantial, independent, published pieces of coverage in so-called "reliable sources" — or whether it meets some sort of alternate, specialized set of criteria, in this case WP:POLITICIAN. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You see, Conflict of Interest cuts both ways. If you're NOT a member of the Green Party and are trying to have a Green Party bio deleted, that is also technically a conflict of interest if you think about it. Instead, we just ASSUME GOOD FAITH and debate the articles, not the editors. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 17:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep, notable under WP:POLITICIAN. The Green Party of Saskatchewan clearly isn't a minor party with running full slates in elections. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather deep misunderstanding of what WP:OUTCOMES#People actually means, so I thought I should attempt to clarify: it does not mean that every leader of a political party must necessarily get their own independent article, regardless of the actual quality of the article that actually gets written — rather, it means that any leader of a political party is a valid potential topic for an article, if and only if that article actually conforms to Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies such as WP:N and WP:RS. AFD consensus, in fact, has always been that an article about a political party leader can still be redirected to the article on the party, or deleted outright, if it is unsourced, poorly sourced and/or doesn't really say anything substantial about the person besides the fact that they exist.
Most of the party leaders who've been nominated in the past few days have articles that rely on primary sources like the party's own web page and/or trivial media mentions that fail the notability requirement of substantial coverage — meaning that the articles are not keepable in their current forms. Which is why I pretty consistently cast a conditional "keep if the article is improved, but redirect if it isn't" vote: a party leader is always a valid potential topic for a properly written and properly sourced article, but is not entitled to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced stub just because they led a political party.
This one at least cites a couple of real media articles in which Victor Lau himself is actually a main subject of the article (even being directly mentioned in the title), which certainly puts it ahead of most of the others — but it's still a barebones stub which says almost nothing about Lau besides the fact that he was a political party leader, so improvements to provide more substantial detail and more substantial sources are still quite sorely needed. Accordingly, as usual: keep if the article can be improved, redirect to the party if it can't. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I support the retention of articles on political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders regardless of ideology. This is the sort of information that should be in encyclopedias. This is the leader of a provincial Canadian political party, ergo from my perspective should be retained. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia. Quoting WP:OUTCOMES is not a strong argument. Note that it also says "previous outcomes do not bind future ones" and "Notability always requires verifiable evidence". That evidence has not been shown to exist here. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 15:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Durkee

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. No significant coverage in the media. West Eddy (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep as a former leader of a registered political party. Falls under WP:OUTCOMES#People. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Possible conflict of interest: Me-123567-Me has identified as a Green Party supporter on his/her user page. West Eddy (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, an interim leader while no election was called. 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. WP:OUTCOMES#People Pdacortex (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not determined by imposing blanket rules like "all leaders of political parties are inherently notable", but by the presence or absence of coverage about her in reliable sources. A political party leader is certainly always valid as a potential article topic, but valid referencing still has to be present — and standard AFD practice has always allowed for a political party leader to be redirected to the article on the party, and not given a standalone article, if legitimate, substantial coverage of her in reliable sources is not present and cannot be added. Accordingly, keep if the article can be spruced up to meet proper notability and sourcing standards within the next week, and redirect to Green Party of Nova Scotia if it can't. There is no "it will get cleaned up someday" exemption for biographies of living people anymore, and it's not good enough to point to the existence of possible sources that never actually get added to the article — the article either actually gets cleaned up immediately or it goes, no in between. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect as per Bearcat. The coverage just isn't there to justify a BLP, near as I can tell. But, she was the leader of a national party, which means that her name may well be a reasonable search term. That makes the redirect a good option. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note also that she was only an interim head of the party, and was unsuccessful in her effort to be elected to the post. If we're considering inherent notability (and ignoring lack of sources), that becomes a bit of a factor. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Interim or not, she was still a leader. And many Green Parties like Nova Scotia elect a new leader each year, and many of them will never see a general election. Notability is not temporary. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's as may be. But if the notability came from "Being elected as leader of..." rather than "Being leader of...", then it's absolutely relevant. But the coverage issue trumps that one, at least in the near term. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, having rotating office holders diminishes the notability of anyone in that role, as it dilutes the meaning of the title. 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES#People is clear: Elected and appointed political figures at the national level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.) Political leaders are given special consideration WP policies because they do influence public opinion. Even the from the small parties. After all, all political parties start small, and their early history, which is comprised of their early leaders, is important to document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdacortex (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Pdacortex, see Bearcat's comment above about this blanket rule.West Eddy (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that a redirect is what is appropriate here. Also, relevant info can be included at Green Party of Nova Scotia. West Eddy (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Manakorn Mekprayoonthong

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

Notability concerns. The only piece of in-depth coverage I could find was this Post Today column (in Thai). Appears to me that the subject's main claim to fame is being sort of a male equivalent of celebutante. He is the son of an ambassador, and has won a youth journalist competition, but these do not establish notability. I could not verify the claims in the article that he is exceptionally famous for freestyle football either. Only 460 Google hits for his name Thai. Paul_012 (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. There is no indication that this article passes WP:GNG, or that the subject has played in a fully professional league, meaning it fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was delete. I'm sorry Crispincornerstone but I have to agree with the "delete" !voters here He isn't notable yet. Also a note to those who objected to the relisting. AFD is not PROD. For an article to be deleted here, somebody aside from the nominator has to say delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Bryan McGuire

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

Nothing notable about this person. He's a lawyer who has argued cases, and talked to the media about the cases he has argued. (Personally, I would have thought this meant A7, as there is nothing important or significant here, but an admin disagreed with me). Singularity42 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have declared a COI. I thought he warrants an entry as he meets three of the five notability points

Significant coverage - press coverage
Reliable - newspapers and court references are reliable
Sources - as above
Independent of the subject - No I have declared a COI
Presumed - for the editor

The cases listed in the Supreme Court and the House of Lords are all important cases that demonstrate this person is a leading silk, like many others listed on here. How do I show that? Crispincornerstone (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting significant coverage in WP:NOTABILITY. What it says is "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Let's go through the various sources provided:

The first article mentions the subject in passing, where he is named as counsel for one of the parties, and gives a one-sentence quote saying what his client will do in response to the decision.
The second article does not mention the subject at all.
The third article does not mention the subject at all.
The fourth article mentions the subject in passing, noting he is counsel for one of the parties, and quotes a sentence he said to the judge.
The fifth article is an expansion of the fourth article, but adds nothing else for the subject.
The sixth article does not mention the subject at all.
The seventh article mentions the subject in passing, noting that he is counsel for one of the parties.

If there were articles about this person, that would be different, but there aren't. Many lawyers and barristers are mentioned as counsel for parties in litigation by newspapers. That does not mean we have a Knowledge (XXG) article on every single lawyer and barrister. Singularity42 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks I will find relevant content and add to page.Crispincornerstone (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I really disagree with re-listing this discussion. The only comment suggesting a possible keep comes from the article's creator who was unable to provide any reliable sources that supports the subject's notability. No other policy based arguments have been suggested for keeping the article. 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete There's no need to relist this as the article in question obviously fails WP:GNG, as discussed above. Ducknish (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete No apparent assertion of notability in the article. EEng (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The entry should remain. An informed appreciation of what to look for in considering whether a lawyer is notable is required. The ultimate test of whether a lawyer is notable is the frequency with which he or she has appeared in the ultimate appeal court, which, in England and Wales, is the House of Lords/the Supreme Court. Few advocates have appeared this often in cases of such significance, or across this range. None of those commenting adversely on this entry address any of those cases or their significance. The cases include leading authorities on the measure of damages in the law of contract, leading decisions on homelessness and housing generally, and on the provision of community care. In virtually all of those cases the appearance has been for local authorities, indicating prominence in that key sector. In fact he has appeared in about 100 reported cases, of which these key decisions form a representative sample. Accordingly the main focus ought to be on the importance of the cases cited, and in our respectful view the case on prominence and being notable is made good amply.

Turning to the press cuttings, they attest to the fact that this person is involved in many of the major local authority cases of the day. Looking for quotes by him, or for interviews with the press, is simply to miss the point. The point is that in high profile cases involving local authorities, there is a consistent use of the same leading counsel. I have added links to directories (not a popular source I know) that show he is a notable QC. Whilst I previously declared a COI I should mention that I no longer work at Chambers,Crispincornerstone (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, an informed appreciation of Knowledge (XXG) policy on notability (WP:GNG) is required, not your personal ideas of what that policy should be. Please direct your arguments to GNG or other applicable guideline (perhaps WP:ACADEMIC?). No one's commented on the importance of the cases because they aren't the subject of the article -- the man is (WP:NOTINHERITED). EEng (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. There Will Always Be an England Dept. (From the Chambers & Partners directory listing for Bryan McGuire): SILKS Bryan McGuire QC is both "a formidable opponent" and "a lovely man, who is thoroughly decent, and has a very good manner with everybody."

Delete per the nom statement. Lord Roem (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep Yash t 101 09:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Thai Tiger Airways

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

Article describes a failed proposal, which is not expected to have any lasting effects or influence. I believe the subject is not notable by itself, and does not warrant a stand-alone article. Paul_012 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep — Even if the airline does not get off the ground, it is still notable. —Comp dude 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The article will need some copy-editing and other cleanup though, but that is absolutely no reason to delete. —Comp dude 04:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Though its not running it does not mean it's not notable. Per above. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 11:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration

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

~~Does not appear to be notable to me. JDDJS (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)~~

It is now clear to me that this article is in fact notable, so I withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Discussed by the Federation of American Scientists here, by the US Government Accountability Office here (though that may be considered a primary source), the RAND Corporation talks about it in one of their publications here. There's not a lot but I think there's enough to scratch passed WP:GNG. Also, I imagine as an offical government "office" or whatever that it should be considered inherently notable (I don't know if policy addresses this). SÆdon 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep needs some examples of programs adding to it. I'll do that. Greglocock (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - This topic appears to pass WP:GNG, per:

"Innovative Development: Global Hawk and DarkStar: Their Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator Program Experience, Executive Summary". RAND. Retrieved 2012-05-02.
Benney, Richard; et al. "The Joint Precision Airdrop System Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration" (PDF). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved May 01, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
"Advanced Concept Technology Demostrations (ACTD) Website". Defense Acquisitions University.
Haas, David J.; et al. (2000). "Joint Advanced Health and Usage Monitoring System (JAHUMS) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD)". American Helicopter Society International. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000 07:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep- Enough valid sourcing for it to be an article--MOLEY (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was Keep. Zad68 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Soladigm

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

3 year old article of questionable notability. No reliable sources after 3 years and primarily edited by one SPA. Previously tagged for speedy deletion based on lack of notability and recently PRODed by me for the same rationale as posted here. —danhash (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Soladigm is the leader of the important emerging field of energy-saving switchable windows and skylights (~$60B industry). Considering the importance of green tech in cutting down energy consumption and green house gases, it appears that this article can be of high interest to green tech industry followers, just as Apple and Microsoft are of high interest to mobile device industry followers, or Calisolar, Sulfurcell, SoloPower (all smaller and less successful than Soladigm) and First Solar to solar cell industry followers. Updates and references were added recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw.hw.dir (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this company Soladigm was in stealth mode for the most part of the last 3-4 years. Now that its first products are beginning to be available to the consumers, more noteworthy activities, news, and interests are expected in the coming months. Its investors are among the most well-known in the US: Khosla Ventures, Sigma Partners, and the Westly Group. Khosla, the billionaire founder of Khosla Ventures, is the most prominent green tech venture capitalist. Westly, the founder of the Westly Group, was the Controller and Chief Fiscal Officer of California, USA. He also was one of the top candidates in the Democratic primary for Governor of California in the 2006 election. Per its website, Soladigm's technology seems unique and innovative, with the potential to change the way people conserve energy. These together with other factors should more than meet the notability criterion for this Soladigm Article. —Electrochromismexpert (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2012 (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, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, with significant coverage in the following reliable sources:

Forbes Magazine: Smart Window Maker Soladigm To Manufacture In Mississippi
The Daily News (Memphis, TN): Olive Branch Lands Soladigm, 350 Jobs
CNET: Soladigm lands cash for energy-saving 'smart glass'
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal: Soladigm raises $9.5M
Reuters: Soladigm Closes $40M for Its First Smart Window Factory

—Northamerica1000 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep References establish notability. However article needs a rewrite with the new references added, updating out-of-date info, and a greater clarity about what the company actually produces. I corrected one old reference that had incorrect details, and there may be more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Tentative keep Not sure those are good references (at least one appears to be just a rewrite of a regulatory filing), but they definitely make a case for notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep References in well-known journals suggest notability. Energy saving products and investors are also notable. Article, however, could be expanded further. CindyMT (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The last AfD on this article was a little over a month ago, ending with a weak consensus to keep the article, and a note that if it goes unimproved for awhile it will likely end up back at AfD. However, a month is really not quite enough time to wait before renominating, and there isn't a strong consensus here one way or the other. I understand the nominator wasn't aware of the previous nomination, and that's ok. Let's give this article at least 3 months or so before we send it back to the chopping block. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals–Royals rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

This honestly isn't a very major rivalry (and WP:NRIVALRY does state that rivalries must demonstrate some form of notability). I looked at the references provided, and some of them simply were references to calling it the "I-70 Series" rather than asserting why this is notable, and at least two were just blog posts (one of them about how this "rivalry" is becoming rather stale). Kansan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete I didn't find the sources compelling last time, and I still don't now. Columnists needing to find something to write about does not make this a rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep - For the same reasons as in the last AfD just a few weeks ago. I don't think anything has changed since then. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep - for crying out loud, give it more than a month before you renominate something for deletion! I'm sorry I haven't yet had a chance to integrate the sources into the article, I have a life outside Knowledge (XXG). Admittedly, it would be useful if other people would contribute as well. Furthermore, I have not seen Knowledge (XXG)' policy on "compelling" sources, only reliable sources, which consensus determined were sufficiently identified only a month ago. This renomination is premature. There are many stub articles on Knowledge (XXG) that are given time to grow. If you delete this article then you should also nominate Citrus Series and Bay Bridge Series which are similarly lacking in references. I'm not sure why this article has such a target painted on its chest, other than it's new. TempDog123 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: TempDog123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

- I apologize, I was the nominator this time and did not see that it had been previously nominated so soon ago. Normally I probably would have noticed this but apparently did not check the talk page this time around. Kansan (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  - No problem, it happens. But if that's the case perhaps you should just consider withdrawing the AfD. TempDog123 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Tempdog, and based on past outcomes such as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry - prominent rivalries are usually notable, and I think this fits the bill. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I personally don't see this as "prominent". That's apparently the minority opinion, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  - I'm a diehard Royals fan and I can attest to the fact that there is nothing prominent about this rivalry. Kansan (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Perhaps it's not the minority opinion after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    - @Bearian what is your opinion of "prominent". Secret 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete.. Not a real rivalry. We don't need to write articles about every two teams that face each other. Needs to have a longstanding historical rivalry for it to be notable. Spanneraol (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2012 (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, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw AfD. The last AfD was a month ago. I think the article probably should be deleted, it doesn't appear to have nearly the history of the interleague in-state (and in-city) Mets-Yankees rivalry for instance which I think is in the bottom tier of notable rivalries. But regardless, this is too short of a period to allow for it to be saved in my opinion. --NINTENDUDE 01:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- So is that a keep or a delete !vote? You didn't nominate the article for deletion, so you can't withdraw the nom. I'd say that a month is plenty of time for the editor to make at least one edit on the page to try to demonstrate notability, especially given that it's been at AfD for about ten days or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Maybe for people who do nothing but hang around editing Knowledge (XXG) all day! For people with families, jobs, lives, it might be a little more difficult. But I'm legitimately curious and never received an answer to this question - is there an intention to similarly delete Citrus Series or any of the other interleague rivalries that are similarly lacking!? I'll note that the number of sources identified for this article outnumber those cited in Citrus Series. Take a close look at Citrus Series, and you'll see that two of the four articles just cite to the respective team histories, and the last two talk about how the rivalry...isn't considered much of a rivalry at all! Again, don't understand the unwarranted attention this article is receiving. TempDog123 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    - Muboshgu, looking through the history of the aforementioned Citrus Series I see that you actually edited out unsourced information from that article, but never saw fit to nominate it for deletion. Why not? It is less sourced than this article and its only references talk about how the rivalry is not really a rivalry. I'm legitimately curious about the distinction that is being drawn here. TempDog123 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      - I don't recall editing it. It may be a candidate for deletion as well. I'll consider it. It's not that relevant to this AfD, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete facing each other in the World Series is not a rivalry, no indication in national sources that this is a notable rivalry, it's all local, team, and some fan blogs sources some of which doesn't look like to be independent of the rivalry. It's like saying Marlins and Yankees are a rivalry because they played against each other in the World Series and there is probably more Yankees fans than Marlins fans in Miami. Every local newspaper will mention any team playing each other as a rivalry. The first close was really a no consensus, so the AFD is valid here. Secret 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The Marlins and Yankees argument is a Strawman. It's not just playing each other in one World Series, it's the controversial Denkinger call, that they are located in the same state, and that they play each other six times each year in interleague play. Since we are on the topic of Florida teams, the latter point seems to be notable enough to sustain other interleague rivalries such as Citrus Series without warranting an AfD, even when those two teams have never played each other in the World Series. I've yet to receive a satisfactory explanation for that double standard.TempDog123 (talk)
Comment I !voted "weak keep" last time, mainly since "there's likely other tidbits floating around about the 'rivalry'". That was a presumption on my part. However, I am disappointed that more sources have not been identified to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement of multiple independent sources of significant coverage since the last AfD, which was a "weak keep" consensus. Note also that the article had been tagged with not meeting GNG since November 2011. My good faith recommendation, taking into account people have real lives, is for interested editors to agree on a timeline whereby sufficient sources will be identified so a consensus can be reached on notability. Would another month be sufficient?—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly wish I could make a steadfast commitment to improving the article myself. Knowledge (XXG) is not my pseudo-occupation nor even a legitimate hobby. I simply identified something that was already mentioned in the rivalries sections of the articles (the Kansas City Royals page mentioned this as a "prominent rivalry" and elaborated upon such, which was inserted by another editor(s) long before I got involved) and turn it into a separate article. Why that has been met with such hostility when I've demonstrated that less notable "rivalries" containing less sources have been immune to such criticism is beyond me. If you want to trim the fat of Knowledge (XXG) sports rivalries to only the most prominent and noteworthy, be my guest, but I'd ask that you at least be consistent while doing so and give the other less prominent rivalry articles similar treatment. Otherwise, if those other articles are given an indefinite time to grow and improve, I see no reason why this one should be treated so differently. Up to all of you, I suppose. TempDog123 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Brewers–Cubs_rivalry is another one that seems lacking for sources but is still in existence. It cites to Bleacher Report for crying out loud. I see Muboshgu nominated it for deletion in April 2011. That was over a year ago and no improvements appear to have been made. Again, all I'm asking for is consistency. If that article deserves a keep and hasn't been renominated over the course of a year, then this one should be given more than a month! Otherwise delete this one if you must, but then I would expect Citrus Series and Brewers–Cubs_rivalry and other baseball "rivalries" of that nature to also end up in the cross-hairs. TempDog123 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    - While it is understandably difficult sometimes, please try not to take the discussion of the article personally. Other stuff might exist because editors might not have gotten around to correcting it. The fact that a discussion has started here and not there, is at least a sign that an attempt to improve some articles (if not immediately all article) is being made. Again, we are all volunteers here. Can you commit to a date (one month?) for identifying additional sources, with the understanding that there is no prejudice for userfication and recreation of the article if sources are not found by that date but are identified at a later time. That seems to be the best compromise for all parties.—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Thanks for your concern, but I'm not taking it personally. My manner of speaking (and typing I suppose) is just very direct. By creating this article, I was simply trying to augment what already existed in the article entries for the respective teams. If this AfD ended in the article being deleted, I would not suffer for it. There are many other things going on in my life of much greater importance. What does bother me though is the inconsistency of Knowledge (XXG) standards across articles that fall into the same broad categories. Something like Mets-Phillies rivalry getting GA status when any Mets fan will tell you there was no rivalry prior to 2007 (and indeed, half the sources and half the article itself make no mention of a rivalry but are about individual games) while more established rivalry articles like Phillies-Pirates rivalry are relegated to "historical" unimportance baffles me. This might seem entirely unrelated to this current nomination, as Muboshgu said above, but it's not. If the watchers of the baseball articles are going to grant certain rivalries GA status and nominate others for deletion, then you need to set a much clearer standard for junior editors such as myself. So far the only Knowledge (XXG) policy I've seen on this subject is WP:NRIVALRY cited above by Kansan, who was responsible for this second nomination. It's a two sentence blurb that doesn't provide much in the way of guidance...at all.
      - As for the one-month time period, within that time period I think that I could commit to integrating the sources already found into the article. I cannot commit to finding more sources in that time that will satisfy your requirements, because frankly I'm not sure what exactly your requirements are. You all seem to have different standards. One person does not think local news is reliable. Another sets forth that they must be "compelling" without defining that term. I simply went by reliable sources but that seems unsatisfactory to many who are simply convinced this is not a rivalry, and nothing seems likely to change that opinion. Nor do I see why this should be subject to such an arbitrary deadline of death when many of the other rivalry articles I've cited of similar (or worse) citation problems are not. I don't edit Knowledge (XXG) on a daily basis, and frankly this article is not top on my list of priorities, though I may appear to be giving a rant to the contrary. It would be better if others could commit to this article but that hasn't been forthcoming and I'm not sure it will be under your timeline either. TempDog123 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        Frankly I don't like any of the rivalry articles.. Unless it involves long time established rivals (Red Sox/Yankees, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cards) then I see no reason for it.. that includes the Phillies/Mets one you mention. Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        
        I had no idea the Mets-Phillies rivalry page was at GA status. I don't question its right to exist, but I do agree that these pages get out of hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)