Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 23

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 22 November 24 November >

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 redirect to Dade City, Florida. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Penix

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

Can't see where this minor councilperson from a 6,000 person town passes WP:POLITICIAN. No assertion of notability beyond being elected to the minor local office. Was PROD'd and CSD'd earlier in the year and the author contested it without any real reason beyond claiming the noms were WP:BITEy. Can't see any significant coverage on the subject. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect to Dade City, Florida) - Eunice Penix was the mayor (now a Commissioner) of the county seat of Pasco County, Florida and is covered in three articles (IMO this covers "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:POLITICIAN). At a minimum, this should be redirected to Dade City, Florida per WP:CHEAP. Articles about Penix include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17] and [18] (complete with brief biography). Some of these articles discuss Penix's opposition to water rationing and her support of pay raises for politicians. Need I add more references?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, just adding references won't help. Nobody said there is no sources or that she doesn't exist. What the article lacks is SIGNIFICANT coverage by third party sources.. Her office is a minor one, so simply occupying it won't get her past notability.Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Looks like we'll need to add to the article more information about Penix based on what the references state, unless the references, or the information contained therein itself is in question. Also, is a redirect being considered as a possibility?--Jax 0677 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is not that the article doesn't contain enough information, but that the sources that you listed above don't contain enough information about Penix for an article to be written on their basis. None of them are actually about her, except for some routine coverage of her candidacies, but they simply mention her in passing in their coverage of local political issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, is a redirect being considered?--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again you're having two different conversations. You want to discuss addinig a ton of useless sources and then act like you are proposing a redirect. Normally I'm open to redirects, but in this case I'd say no. This person is a minor politician in a small town. They are an unlikely search term. Additonally, this person is so non-notable, they were being used as an example of how non-notable people get articles. And please, spare me the wikilink to CHEAP again. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply - I have just expanded the article with further details about Penix's career and votes. Reference 18 contains significant details about Penix. Also, WP:POLITICIAN states "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion". For this reason, if this article is not kept for some reason, it should be redirected somewhere. Also, what proof is there that the references do not contain significant information about Penix? If this article were to be redirected, in exactly what article would this reliably sourced information about Penix be placed?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You have it backwards my friend. I don't need to prove a negative. Notability is not presumed. Notability must be established, thus YOU need to show the significant coverage. You seem confused about the difference between reliable sources and notablity. Just because you can find a newspaper mention that someone voted for a park or expanding a water plant doesn't make then (or that event) notable. Simply finding their name in the news doesn't do it either. For example, the public information officer from a police department will often have their name in the paper. That doesn't make them notable. A blurb about a candidate or some mentions in the local paper aren't significant coverage. Some of the sources you posted above aren't even coverage of her AT ALL, let alone significant. The very first one is an article about a crime and it merely mentions the fact that one of the people involved is related to her. That is a wonderful example of something that is NOT significant coverage. I know exactly what POLITICAN states and she fails it. Nor does your notion that it makes this a redirect since the office involved here is so minor that it doesn't have a wikipedia article. What you call "significant" will not meet most experienced editors definition of significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Village Pump Notification

edit

Arbitrary Section Break

edit
  • Delete Not notable. She is a commissioner in a small town. Her involvement in local matters is typical of what most commission members in a small town might do. She has not been involved in any scandal, but even if she had been, it would have been a tempest in a teapot. If she is notable, then so are the other Dade City commissioners, but they aren’t noteworthy by Wikipedia standards either. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To Tupelo's comment, if a local politician has significant coverage, they meet "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" per WP:POLITICIAN. How are the nine separate references I have outlined in addition to the three or more that Niteshift deleted not significant? I would consider "Mayor Pro-Tem" a major local political figure. Reference 18 shown above gives a significant biography of Penix. Also, do we really want to crowd the Dade City, FL article with information about Penix? Additionally, there is no reason under the ten points of WP:RFD#DELETE for this redirect to be deleted (if I am mistaken, please advise).

      Also, the NOTIFICATION above has been deleted twice by a user involved in this discussion. If an uninvolved admin thinks it should be deleted, then and only then should we be obscuring comments like this that may be relevant to the discussion.--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The mayor of Dade City, plus plenty of news hits. This definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. §FreeRangeFrog 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the mayor of Dade City and never has been but even the mayor is just one of the five commissioners, with the same vote as the other four. As for the local news hits, the other commissioners, and all other commissioners in all other small towns, would have a similar number of local news hits. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I wouldn't exactly call the SPTimes, TBOnline nor Pasco Times local to Dade City. Also, I don't see how "all other commissioners in all other small towns, would have a similar number of local news hits" applies to this discussion. My mistake, "Mayor Pro-Tem".--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The links are to Pasco county sections of Pasco county editions of SPTimes, TBOnline not those papers' main editions or sections, that is why I call them local publications. By the way, I see evidence of sock puppetry. You said it was your mistake about calling her mayor, and yet it was FreeRangeFrog who I was correcting. I caught you. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN....William 01:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm leaning to keep on this one, but at the moment I am looking over some of the sources given and they don't seem to be actually about this particular person. I do think it is disingenuous to say that somebody is not notable just because they were a small town mayor. If there is something that can be called a reliable source (newspaper accounts to qualify towards that end... if they are substantially about the topic) the notability requirement certainly can be met. The only reason why somebody from a small town isn't notable has nothing to do with the size of the town, but rather if there simply are sources of information from which to write this article in the first place. Invoking WP:POLITICIAN is contrary to deletion policy by itself other than to suggest that some high quality sources may be difficult to find. In this case, if a particular municipal commissioner was outspoken enough to be the subject of several articles and if details about their mayoral term in office were reported, it would be notable... regardless of the size of the town.

    Find those sources though. So far from all of the sources I've seen either have just a very small biographical outline (about a sentence or two) or articles where she voted for or against legislation which was the primary focus of the article. In the case of the home invasion robbery, she was merely mentioned as the mother of the victim... something interesting in terms of a biography, but none the less not really much of a source to count toward notability. I don't see any articles that really talk about this person as the focus of the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Robert, nobody is saying that a small town mayor can't be notable. The point about the office is that it is not one that is considered inherently notable (like a governor). There is no lack of media outlets in the Tampa Bay area. There simply hasn't been significant coverage on here because....wait for it....she just isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary. What I see are assertions that just because she is from a small town that she isn't notable because the town isn't notable. That in fact is the basis of the nomination. There is one source I would say counts towards notability, which can be found here: [20] Beyond that, I haven't found anything. Usually the threshold is 2-3 quality sources at a minimum, of which there seems to be just one source of information. Preferably it would be useful to have sources from multiple authors or publishers (aka other newspapers or a TV interview or something). That is the standard which should be used, not some quip about the hayseed backwater of civilization that for some reason doesn't fit your taste. An objective quest to find sources and failing is a justification to declare that notability requirements have not been met. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Robert, but you are mistaken. the basis of the nomination is that she is not notable. She fails the politician criteria and there is a lack of significant coverage about her. THAT is the reason I nominated this. for you to claim I had another motive essentially calls me a liar. Now, if you'd like to come right out and do so, go for it. Otherwise, I'd thank you to not tell me what the basis of my nomination is. I grant you that I did mention the size of the town andn the particular office, which I have clearly explained was in response to the fact that certain offices are considered "inherently notable" and this would not be one of those offices. And politicians in smaller cities have been notable because of things that happened. This woman simply isn't one of them. A vote to cut this or fund that might get a mention or two in the news, but there is no enduring interest in it. Half of this article is WP:RECENTISM. The fact that she is in the coverage area of a major media market and we are still struggling for significant coverage should be an indicator, especially after multiple terms in office. What we mainly have is perfunctory coverage of candidate bios and council meeting recaps. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say that there aren't any sources. I pointed one out, which is a start. I would agree that a small town politician might raise some warning flags to suggest other sources ought to be found to establish notability. It may be possible that some interview of this particular person exists that goes into biographical details, so I think it is wrong to shut down the discussion and simply pontificate that such sources simply don't exist, but I'd agree that they do need to be found. This particular woman is in the public eye and seems to have some interesting things happen in her life that it might be worth spending a little bit of time (as I have) to try and actually find some of those sources before going half-cocked and simply pronouncing this topic as non-notable. The converse would also be true... as just because somebody was governor of Ohio or North Dakota doesn't mean they necessarily deserve a Wikipedia article either. If you can't find those reliable sources which provide substantial information about the person from which to build the article, it really shouldn't be written. It would be unlikely to happen for recent politicians, but for historical figures I think that could definitely be true, and I have seen red links for some significant politicians simply because sources have not been gathered to write articles about such people. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sir, I did not say there are no sources. I said none of the sources provide significant coverage. (maybe the bold type will help) Those are two very different things. I did look for sources. I haven't seen significant coverage of her. Actually, POLITICIAN does make the case that certain offices will be inherently notable, but that is beside the point since it doesn't make that case here. You've made a lot of incorrect claims about my motives, the basis of the nom, what research I did before or what is "half-cocked". Frankly, I don't think you;ve assumed good faith at all. I think you've assumed bad faith from the start and have produced no real evidence to support your assumptions and allegations. So how about this Robert: Please state a policy based reason it should be kept or deleted? That would probably be more productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant to this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Reverting of Village Pump Discussion

edit
  • The comment about the Village Pump Discussion above has been reverted 3 times by the exact same user. I have started this section to discuss the relevance of this link [21] and whether it should be kept in the AfD, or if it should be removed by an uninvolved administrator. I see no reason to remove it, as there is no flagrant policy violation in the statement itself, and the statement is not completely nor conclusively irrelevant. Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have refused to discuss this and just jammed it in here. Guess what? 3RR applies to you putting this crap back in too. You're simply being a dick because because I nom'd your article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Civility please Niteshift, using the "D" word is not encyclopedic in this case. Please show me where I have violated 3RR, because once I am up to 2RR, I hand it off to someone else. You removed the NOTIFICATION 3 times, and the history proves it. Contrarily, there is no proof that I am "being a [EXPLETIVE] because [you] nom'd [my] article" (if I am mistaken, show me where).--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your response is on the talk page, where it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply - To your response on the talkpage:
            • "Here is your other response: You've got no room to preach civility. Your passive aggressive silliness is most uncivil. And if you'd like, I'll wikilink it when I say you're being a [expletive] . 3RR doesn't only count for a single item, it's any item in the article. I need not prove you're being a [expletive]. It's clear you have sand in your bathing suit over this."
          • I was not aware that 3RR meant doing 3 reverts to one article (not necessarily the same text), so I apologize for that. That being said, I only reverted the text as many times as you did. If I did so fewer times than you did, then WP:BOOMERANG applies to you as well. When I write, I am simply responding to accusations made against me.

            Also, [WP:expletive] states:

            "please remember that "[expletive]" is itself an offensive expression which, in accordance with our civility policy, should not be used to refer to specific users. Great caution should therefore be applied when linking to this page, or using other shortcuts such as WP:[expletive] , in relation to the behaviour of particular individuals - doing this is likely to make them feel that you are grossly insulting them."--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the subject at hand

edit
  • Delete as the nom says, fails WP:POLITICIAN, simply not notable. This has nothing to do with being from a small town. New York City is the largest city in the US, but I would not support articles on all the city councilpeople, because they, too, are not notable and would fail WP:POLITICIAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minorest of politicians, not notable enough. It's unfortunate that there are attempts to derail this AfD: I looked at that Village pump discussion and it has nothing to do with this at all--it's simply a matter of notability guidelines and coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is such an unlikely search topic, I don't see where a redirect makes much sense. If this were a case of a minor player in a big event, it would make sense. Here, regardless of how "cheap", it looks like a waste of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and the lack of significant coverage means the subject also fails WP:GNG. No great objection to a redirect, though I think it would be a bit pointless. Also concerned it might encourage recreation of an article later. But whatever. Stalwart111 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apology - I apologize for accidentally voting twice. I only meant to add a subsection about the redirect to encourage discussion about the same.--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's alright - just can't see the point of a sub-heading after only two comments, especially one with 6 question marks. Just looks messy and a bit like you're trying to dismiss the !votes of the two people before you by "drawing a line under them". I'm sure that's not what you're trying to do so maybe we could do without the (fourth) sub-heading. Stalwart111 11:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (G11) by DGG. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education Helper

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

This looks very much like an advert, and I can see no way to make it neutral without such a slash-and-burn as to reduce it to half a dozen words. AFDing rather the WP:PRODding as it's possible that sources exist in a foreign language which could make it reliable (the article as it stands doesn't even specify in which country this is happening, which makes it virtually impossible to check).  Mogism (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. MBisanz talk 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Godulf Geoting

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

This legendary individual has zero notability independent of the pedigree in which he appears, and all that is known about him is that he was said to be son of Geot and father of Finn. He was not a 'legendary King of Lindsey' as the page claims, nor a Legendary King of Britain - he just appears as ancestor of the God Woden, who himself is made ancestor of the line of the Lindsey kings, who are themselves completely unknown to the historical record except that they are named (and not as kings) in this one pedigree. No information appears in the pedigree except his name - no title, no biographical information. This man is not notable and never will be notable as a historical figure: there is never going to be more to say about him than that a bunch of medieval pedigrees makes him son of Geot and father of Finn, while one medieval pedigree decides to put the name Folcwald in that place in the pedigree instead. The underlying pedigree is already discussed at Ancestry of the kings of Wessex. This is the forth page created in the past week to serve as a POV fork/COATRACK for this same information, the other three (Ancestry of the kings of Britain; Genealogia Lindisfarorum; Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia) all already being up for AfD or merger. Agricolae (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Geoting is described as a Legendary king of Lindsey in a secondary source by Frank Stenton. There are three other reliable, notable secondary sources describing the primary sources that note a name in a list of our most ancient ancestors. In the the field of genealogy, Geoting is obviously notable. There is some biographical information about his ancestor coming from an island off northern Germany of note, plus Noah is notable to most. It contains five names copied from another article, including the title of the article. If you really want, you can remove those four names for the sake of argument and the article can be about Geoting and his ancestry, but that is a very weak argument. Plenty of the existing legendary kings have far more poorly sourced content, innaccuracies and lack of biographical information but are clearly still notable. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stenton says of him, ". . . the ninth-century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting, . . . " and "the list runs . . . Godulf Geoting. With the five names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." Godulf is a mythological name that Stenton will not discuss further. That's it. In the field of genealogy, Godulf is just another name appearing among a lot of other names in just another invented pedigree. There is nothing notable about him whatsoever, unlike his supposed father Geat or his supposed son Finn, both of which are remembered in Anglo-Saxon pseudo-historical material. The notability of Noah has exactly nothing to do with the notability of Godulf. Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable subject about whom absolutely nothing is mentioned in the reliable sources except that his name appears as a legenday figure in an obscure geneology. ZERO sources exist to expand the content of this article beyond a single sentence. Also a POV fork and content fork serving as a coatrack for the creator's OR and synth, the fourth such article created in the space of a week to make a WP:POINT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment British mythology is not non-notable. I'm only trying to give a bit of the importance of descent back and genealogy falling within an auxilliary science of history should be something we're including, even if I am short on legendary facts. I might be able to find some stuff to compare with the Goths and Beowulf, I'll keep working on it. Point being, compare to just a tiny bit of what India has about fairy tales they made up:
  • Delete - The important point here is this search on Google scholar which shows absolutely no scholarly sources for this information. Even a search for plain "Godulf" since 1950 only shows a page and a half of entries - some of which are obviously not relevant and the others which appear to only show the name mentioned as a "name in a pedigree" - if there is no scholarly discussion of this name, then there is no notability. The 1921 Chambers Beowulf "source" only lists Godulf as a name in a pedigree - there is NO discussion of him at all. All of the available sources in the article itself just are passing mentions - no in depth discussion of the person at all. Without secondary sources, we have no notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps you missed the bits about the line coming from Noah and the bit about the German Island. Not much, but more than Cynewald for instance, who should by this logic also be getting the delete treatment. I've got another one coming about Geoting having a "son" called Finn and there may well be more info in secondary sources. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are three critical flaws with this argument. 1) The same collection of pedigrees make Cynewald a descendant of Godulf and everyone in this part of his pedigree, so there is not more information for Godulf than for Cynewald - if descending from people from a German Island established notability, they would both have it, as would be the case for a descent from Noah. 2) notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so even if he 'comes from Noah', so what? 3) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a flawed argument for retaining a page. You are right, Cynewald's page should be deleted - that is no argument for retaining this page. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree and see what people think about the value of their past. I'll vote keep on Cynewald incidentally as he is notable in the field of genealogy too. Added two more gems of notability for you to deal with. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making this groundless claim. As a historical entity, a person is not notable in the field of genealogy unless they have been subject to multiple genealogical studies or have been highlighted by multiple authors as some sort of genealogical nexus, and certainly not by being just another name in just another pedigree, as is the case with both of these individuals. As to the 'two more gems', they are glass - nice and shiny but valueless. One is just recapitulating the pedigree that is our sole source for this genealogical entity. The other is giving the well-known Anglo-Saxon naming elements that the name is comprised of, adding no more to notability than someone discussing the origin of the name Gwendolyn makes anyone ever named Gwendolyn notable. Agricolae (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, no sources with scholarly discussion of this name as opposed to the list of names. Paul, your article creation in this area is starting to become disruptive to others working on these topics. Please stop and get consensus before you next create an article in this area. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is notable in the field of genealogy as well worn, tired and pointed out. I'll let everyone decide whether that's suitable for Wikipedia or not. I'll try and refrain from more genealogy articles and find something else to play with while it gets sorted out. Incidentally though, have you read The Neverending Story? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the age of the argument or its wear is as relevant as how it stacks up against the counter argument. The argument for non notability is on the table. The counter argument is . . . What is the counter argument? The notability of this individual to the field of genealogy has been stated as an established fact, as if it were self-evident that this was the case. What criteria would one use to evaluate notability to the field of genealogy that would result in the conclusion that this particular name in a pedigree is notable?
I have made the counter argument. There are already articles about non-notable "names in lists" sitting around here all over the place in a far worse condition than this page. The point is that they are highly notable lists with highly notable names. Especially in this case as Godulf is at the end of a line, making him an important original dynast who could have been the basis for all sorts of myths and legends, from Beowulf to Falkore, the luck dragon in The Neverending Story. He should be kept to help foster our children's dreams, imaginations and inclinations towards entitlement to encourage ambition. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, the lead argument for the fact that he is notable to the field of genealogy is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an argument explicitly listed as invalid? Further, the field of genealogy is independent of Wikipedia, so the fact that other random people in pedigrees have Wikipedia pages cannot possibly establish notability to the field of genealogy. A name chosen at random from a highly notable list is still a random name. In terms of being important for Beowulf or any of the other books you mention, that is not even original research - you just made it up. You don't keep Wikipedia articles for WP:SOAPBOX reasons either. Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those that haven't seen the film. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God save the King. Godulf Geoting is not only notable in the field of genealogy. As I have been trying to explain in some other discusssions, he is notable in other fields that I have brought into discussion on this page that can be further researched. For instance, the island Godulf's ancestors came from, this is notable in Geography and Ethnography. Hector Munro Chadwick has suggested a possible name of this island Oghgul, and mentioned migrations through other islands; "Tanet in the British language Ruoihin". This place probably needs an notable article to itself. The fact that someone noted his name is a combination of God and Wolf also is notable in linguistics and philology. These are all auxilliary sciences of history that can tell us about our past. Geoting qualifies in several fields as illustrated and I will endeavour to find more.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Godolf has been largely ignored by the field of genealogy, mentioned only in passing to dismiss him as having been made up along with the most of the other names in the list. That the island his ancestors supposedly came from is notable tells us nothing about him. Just think about it - Britain is notable. By this argument everyone in the world who had ancestors from Britain is notable. Membership in a group, in this case people whose ancestors came from that island, does not render one notable - WP:NOTINHERITED. No, the fact that someone noted the origin of the name does not make everyone with the name magically notable to linguistics. Godulf has absolutely no claim to notability - none whatsoever. Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hector has pointed out his notability in history. As well as Beaw Sceldweaing and the whole dang caboodle of British mythology, for the reasons mentioned above. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the WP:Notability (people) where it makes it clear that to be notable, "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources" - subject, not just mentioned in passing but the actual subject of the study. Godulf as just a name in a pedigree, does not qualify. Further, Hector Munro Chadwick, to whom you are clearly referring even though you have linked a Trojan hero (knock it off with the goofball Wikilinks - linking the obscure name from a pedigree to the entirely irrelevant J.R. Ewing is both childish and trivializes the process here), says that someone familiar with Finn (Frisian) son of Folcwalda has become confused and substituted the name Folcwalda for that of Godulf. There is no justification for the level of dishonesty entailed in spinning this as "point[ing] out [Godwulf's] notability in history". Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name Ewing sounded similar linguistically to Sceldweaing, so I chose the closest notable link I could find to save another red link. Sorry if it seems a bit goofball to mention a Trojan hero at this point, but what Hector Munro Chadwick says is just the type of muse that writers and authors about legendary kings through the centuries would have taken from the names in Vespasian B Vi (Lindsey). Godulf Geoting passes notability general guidelines on "Any biography" through point 2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Godulf is a legendary king that has been part of the enduring historical record (of legendary kings at the very least) for at least twelve centuries now. He was probably more widely recognized before that. I could probably also argue for notability under "People notable for only one event" - being a legendary ancestor of a whole load of people.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you are just making things up. He never existed. He made no contribution to anything. He never existed. Some genealogist in the distant past decided that the name Godulf should go in his pedigree of the king of Lindsey as father of Finn and son of Geat. He never existed. Just getting your legendary wife pregnant with a legendary child is not a contribution to a field. Other than relieving the writers' block of the genealogist this non-person accomplished nothing, made no contribution, because he never existed. You also need to read WP:ONEEVENT again - all it says is that someone known only for one event may not merit a page of their own. It doesn't day that if you can invent an 'event' for a person (or in this case, a name in a pedigree that was never a person) they are automatically notable. Agricolae (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These technical issues are being heavily discussed at Talk:Godulf Geoting. As a note to closing admin, I would request a copy of the talk discussion pasted here for future reference. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Redirect to Godulf I've done a lot of work on the article after extensive discussions and come up with this redirect as the best I can suggest. Following example of "The Full Wiki" to keep up with competition.[22] Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Godulf is itself a redirect - you never redirect to a redirect. Agricolae (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has now been almostly entirely written with factually innacurate, assumptive material by the editor suggesting the article's deletion. I now vote we rip up this literary forgery and start again with my version. Technically according to the majority of sources, being the son of Geata Tætwaing, I should have called the article Godulf Geating in any case. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Paul has demonstrated he understands the source material well enough for this to be an appropriate close. The article should simply be deleted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Agricolae has mentioned any source material. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such dishonesty is unbecoming and unproductive. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll get back looking for your page numbers and books later. In the meantime, I've come up with a solution. REDIRECT Langfedgetal (for now). Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(And so begins the next attempt to COATRACK the information into yet another page). This is not an appropriate place to redirect Godulf Goeting as anybody looking for this name from Anglo-Saxon genealogical pseudo-history (or more appropriately, pseudo-genealogy) will not be wanting to go to a page about a late Icelandic family tree. Who am I kidding? - there is little likelihood that anyone is ever going to search for Godulf Geoting. Agricolae (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As does the unreasonably deletion of sourced text linked with a sourced article comparing them on that page. So we can't REDIRECT there. I've tried putting the original text of the genealogies, but Agricolae deleted this as misleading. I've disputed the factual accuracy of the article there and raised a discussion so that Agricolae can explain to us all why original text is misleading. We can REDIRECT Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies when that's been cleared up. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original names can be found in the Genealogies of the Anglian collection and Anglo-Saxon chronicle.WartonPrice1871 Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vespasian B VI (Mercia), Tiberius A. VI and B. I, Parker version Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 183 Chronicle
Godulf Geoting Godwulf Geating Godulf Geating
Finn Goduulfing Finn Godulfing
Friodolf Finning Freobowulf Godwulfing Fribulf Finning
Frealaf Friodulfing Frealaf Friobowulsing (sic) Freobelaf Freobulfing
Woden Frealafing Woden Frealafing Woden Freobalafing
  • Delete. Figure doesn't appear to be notable; I can find no secondary sources that concentrate on him as a distinct subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2012 (UT
  • Comment In reply to an unanswered question on the deleted Ancestry of the kings of Britain page, I'd like to add a reply to a sourced discussion there relevant to this topic's content -
I apologise for not noticing Ealdglyth's sourced argument and have found her comments exceptionally useful and would like to take the opportunity to thank her for her input. As refreshing as it is to get a sourced argument, Stenton said ""With the six names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." I also have to say that the source has been misread because the source says "With the five names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned.", and no Geat is mentioned in the text. Perhaps you have a different version, but here is mine, the text I am speaking of exists at the bottom of page 127 -

Stenton, F. M. (Frank Merry) (1970). Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: Being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton : Edited by Doris Mary Stenton. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–. ISBN 978-0-19-822314-6. Retrieved 29 November 2012.

At the risk of sounding repetetive to prove a point, but name number 6 is not the Name of God.

There is no number six in Stenton's list.

The philological importance of the "-ing" ending is massive also as place names such as Birmingham and Nottingham show (Stenton again, but different source). This is fascinating info for the millions of British people living in these cities and towns.Frank Merry Stenton (1971). Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford University Press. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-0-19-821716-9. Retrieved 29 November 2012.

here's another original source using the correct terminology in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle sources:

Great Britain. Public Record Office (1861). The Anglo-Saxon chronicle, according to the several original authorities. Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. pp. 28–. Retrieved 29 November 2012.

and here is a third source to put a version of Bede on top of it, clearly stating difference between Geata Taetwaing and Geat:

Sharon M. Rowley (15 September 2011). The Old English Version of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. pp. 66–. ISBN 978-1-84384-273-6. Retrieved 29 November 2012.

I continue to repeat my argument that the "appellatives of God" (if you are not happy with Richard Price calling these names "their deities") at the end of a mythological dynasty of England are all of massive notability, significant impact on history, etc. and deserve significant coverage, which can be found in this article's history. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very carefully gave a full citation for the information - it comes from a different collected work. Did you not read that citation I gave? Here it is again - Stenton, F. M. (1927). "Lindsey and its Kings". In Davis, H. W. C. (ed.). Essays in History Presented to Reginald Lane Poole. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. pp. 136–150.. The specific quotes come from p. 137, with the discussion on the various names taking part on the following pages. I did not "misread" my source .. I have a different (and earlier) edition. And again ... what Stenton says there is "In it's ninth-century form, the list runs Aldfrið Eatting Eatta Eanferðing Eanferð Biscoping Biscop Beding Beda Bubbing Bubba Cadbæding Cædbæd Cueldgilsing Cueldgils Cretting Cretta Uinting Uinta Wodning Uuoden Frealafing Frealaf Frioðulfing Fioðulf Finning Finn Gofuulfing Godulf Geoting. With the six names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned. It may, however, be observed that every other genealogy in Sweet's text ends with Frealaf, the father of Woden." Note that Stenton does NOT use the archaic spelling of the manuscript (which he has transcribed in his long list of names) through the rest of the article. If "six" later became "five" (which I don't doubt is possible, six is probably a typo there) ... that means that the names "beyond Woden" would be " Frealfaf Frioðulfing Fioðulf Finning Fin Gofuulfing Godulf Geoting" - that's "four" people explicitly - "Frealaf son of Fioðulf", "Fioðulf son of Finn" "Finn son of Godulf" "Godulf son of Geot". Note, however, that there are FIVE names mentioned - as "Geot" is definitely included there. This is just basic knowledge in the field .. of how to read manuscript forms and what they mean. That's why we use secondary sources and why it's dangerous to assume too much. And it's worth noting that Stenton never again mentions these two people - Godulf or Geot throughout the rest of the paper. In fact, he says of the ninth-century text which mentions Godulf and the more common list given in Florence of Worcester that "The only material difference between the two lists is that while the ninth-century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting, Woden stands at the head of the pedigree given by Florence. So far as they relate to times which may be regarded as historical, there is no discrepancy between the lists." It's quite clear that Stenton regards this expanded list which contains Godulf as "mythological" and not historical. Since there is no serious treatment of these names in modern secondary works - they clearly fail notability.
Readers are welcome to compare sources, and find the final stairway to heaven over at Langfedgetal, where the full list of the Names of god can be found deleted in the article history, with the original manuscript sources, cited with secondary sources, and sealed. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And also feel free to evaluate the extent of serious treatment of these names in the history of this article, there is loads, from mention by the author of Lord of the Rings, to serious, important philological discussion and the part the figure of Godulf and the name Geating has played inspiring literature from Snorri Sturlson to Frodo Baggins. I am sure I can find plenty more too. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence whatsoever that Godulf inspired anyone (except, perhaps, one Wikipedia editor). As to Lord of the Rings, Tolkien was a respected Anglo-Saxon linguist who also wrote some popular fantasy books. For the purposes of this discussion, the former qualification is of much more relevance than the latter. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The original 1927 publication contained an error, that was then corrected for the recent reissue - I guess academic publishers do make mistakes. That doesn't change anything, because this whole debate of five or six and whether Woden actually refers to the 'son of Woden' and not Woden is a distraction from the issue of notability. All of the references in the page break down into three categories: 1) most of them name Godulf when giving a pedigree, providing no other mention of Godulf himself. He is just another name in just another pedigree. Arguing over how Stenton counted doesn't change the fact that he just named Godulf in a pedigree and then dismissed his cohort as being unworthy of further notice; 2) Some of them name Godulf as being in one or more lists, then go on to say that other lists name someone else in that position instead. He is just another name in just some other pedigrees and not in others. 3) A very small number of them speculate that he may be the same as the father of the legendary Frisian, Finn. However, this father is only known in those legends as the father of Finn, and plays no role himself. So, at best, he is just another name in a pedigree who may be identical to just another name in a legend about whom nothing is known but his name. No matter how one reads Stenton, no matter how one counts, he is not notable. All we can reliably say about him is that he is a name in a pedigree. That's it. This article spends all those lines of text, talking about the sources and his father and the linguistic elements that comprise his name, but these ornaments only obscure the fact that he is just a name in a pedigree about whom nothing more can be said that is relevant. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for sure. A very marginal item that clearly fails WP:NOTE due to obvious lack of serious 2ndary sources. One would have to stretch reality to some new level of surrealism to even consider this a notable encyclopedic item. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete via CSD G7 (Non-admin closure). — sparklism hey! 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Grey of Chimay

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

A musician, minor member of a notable group who seems to fail WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG since I can't find any third-party sources that would possibly establish standalone notability that isn't inherited. The only additional references given in the article are links to a few of the group's fan pages, and a single interview with a college newspaper or magazine. §FreeRangeFrog 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just added third party source articles to establish standalone notability. He has been a member of Blackmore's Night (notable) for nearly five years, appeared on two studio albums, one live album, and one DVD released on Sony Records (notable) (hardly a minor role). In response to "failing" WP:CREATIVE, under Wiki Creative Professionals, he satisfies #3 in creating a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and #4 the person's work has won signficant critical attention (as a musician and viral video producer). --Nhlrnger72 (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment First, every single link you added fails to establish the subject's notability. Those articles in the NYT don't even mention him at all, and even if they did it would probably be considered trivial and secondary coverage at best. Second, notability is not inherited. Third, you removed the deletion notice at the top. You shouldn't do that, and it makes no difference as to the outcome of this discussion. §FreeRangeFrog 23:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is going. Don't you people have anything else better to do with your time than sit there and judge one's notability solely based on your opinion and biased interpretation of Wikipedia's policies? Why is this so important to you? What exactly makes you the authority? There are thousands of other pages of entertainers on Wikipedia that you could nitpick with the same excuses to delete as you are with this page. Notability is not inherited? Of course it is, how does one become notable in the first place? And how could one possibly maintain any notability if individuals like you keep deleting Wikipedia pages of individuals who fit the criteria of having one? This individual has and continues to produce a wide body of notable work, with published references to prove. A page about him on Wikipedia is not going to make any burden to this site. I protest your move to delete, and I protest the idea that individuals like yourself have the ability to control and influence what sort of information should be made available on this website. --Nhlrnger72 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Blackmore's Night. I don't feel a standalone article is justified but as a member of a notable band with some verifiable information that isn't currently in the band article, this should be merged and redirected. Members of notable bands are always at least valid search terms for the band and should at the very least be redirects. --Michig (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what is there to merge since the group's article does not include bio info on minor members (who this person is), but I think a redirect would be the most appropriate thing given that it's a plausible search term. §FreeRangeFrog 20:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The majority of individual musicians that are listed in other notable rock band wikipedia pages all have their own wikipedia page. Some of the former members mentioned in this particular group's article also have their own individual wikipedia pages.--Centerhdlp5273 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — Centerhdlp5273 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The references added today mention Mike Clemente in passing, and even if this article is on Mike Clemente (there are no references that establish that fact), the businesswire reference is only a passing mention on a press release site and the YouTube video is from Earl Grey's own website, thus doing nothing to prove notability. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am willing to userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennxpenn

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

While undeniably a popular choice on YouTube and social media, I cannot find any WP:Reliable sources indicating that she meets our criteria for biographies, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more information and needs to be completed --Shawnomalley (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I cannot find any signfiicant coverage about her in reliable sources. As for point 2 of the entertainer notability, unless we have third party sources attesting to popularity or huge fan base, then I cannot agree that this criteria is met. I note that the primary guideline of notability states "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - By the reasoning cited to support the notability of this article, perhaps the top 20% of youtube uploaders should get a WP page without a single actual reference. Even a follower at the New York Times is useless, unless they decide to write it up.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. The subject has withdrawn their request. Runame (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Liss

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

This is an article about a musician who does not meet any of the qualifications for notabity in WP:MUSIC except for possibly #1 (subject of coverage multiple non-trivial, independent soruces). However only one of the articles is still online and I'm not sure it really rises above trivial coverage, in any case it's just one source from a hometown paper. The other sources are archived, or are very passing mentions of him, or are Facebook/iTunes/official site sort of stuff and wouldn't count toward notability.

The subject of the article has asked me to nominate it for deletion and suggested the creation of the article may have been promotional in nature. Based on WP:MUSIC I think this person is probably of marginal notability at best, given the sources, so I am inclined to lean toward deletion given the subject's request. Runame (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the subject requested it (is that verified?). This is an interesting one - at first glance the band itself seems like it should be notable, and the two linked albums seem to also meet WP:NALBUMS but I don't think the artist himself is notable. Perhaps the issue was that the creator went with a bio instead of an article about the group. In any case I'd say he fails WP:GNG on his own. §FreeRangeFrog 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatubeenwaitin4

edit
Whatubeenwaitin4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this album does appear to have been released, it is most certainly a bootleg. It surely fails WP:NALBUMS as it has not received considerable, extensive or significant coverage from reliable sources (the one used earlier in the sentence being the exception) as far as I can tell. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rah Ahan F.C.. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rah Ahan Novin Shahr-e-Rey F.C.

edit
Rah Ahan Novin Shahr-e-Rey F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football club who played in an amateur league at the fourth level. One of a large number of unreferenced stub articles for Iran football clubs. Fails WP:GNG. Cloudz679 17:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge and redirect to Rah Ahan F.C. - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:
Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO
Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO
Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO
Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO
Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO
The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. I think Novin means reserve team so the redirect should be to Rah Ahan F.C. (referred to as Rah Ahan Shahr-e-Rey in the 2009–10 Hazfi Cup). League Octopus (League Octopus 21:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • I'd be interested to know how you are so sure about all of those answers. Did you check for Persian sources? If not, then surely all of those "NO"s should be "DON'T KNOW"s. And why delete before redirection? If this is a reserve team then shouldn't the content that we have about it be merged to the club's article? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always use the best available information and am very confident that a fair assessment has been made in this case. The article is devoid of content but I would be supportive of the season by season details for 2010–11 being transferred to the main club's article with the additional note that reserve team was relegated back to the Provincial Leagues at the end of the season. It is clear that Rah Ahan Novin Shahr-e-Rey F.C. has not played at a level in which the parameters laid down in the user essay WP:NTEST are triggered - no evidence of an appearance in the national cup or appearances in the Iran Football's 2nd Division. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as G11. For the future, please tag blatant resumes as G11 rather than nominating for Articles for deletion. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BonmonRakeshGangaputhra

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

Not encyclopedic, written like a CV/resume, possible confilct of interest. jfd34 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Scientific Research Publishing. Consensus is that this isn't notable. Where to redirect to, and what if anything to merge from the history, can be decided through the editorial process.  Sandstein  08:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Quantum Information Science

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

Re-creation of an article deleted after an uncontested PROD. Non-notable new journal, published by a publisher notable only for its low quality publications. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Scientific Research Publishing. I see no evidence that this journal is notable, the article creator has a history of promotional edits, and we probably also have a neutrality problem if we either accept this as a legitimate mainstream journal (despite its publisher) or write the truth about its publisher (without sources that address the legitimacy of the journal itself). Nevertheless, its publisher is notable enough, and redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I appreciate Phoenixred"s efforts, none of the databases listed is selective or major, as required by WP:NJournals. Perhaps the journal will grow in time and become notable (if ever the publisher manages to shake off the bad reputation that it has earned itself up till now), but at this point, my crystal ball remains foggy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs)
  • merge and redirect I'm happy that you found a larger subject to redirect to. However, please read Wikipedia:Merge_and_delete. I am never happy with delete and redirect results. It puts what was there permanently out of my less-privileged-than-admin reach, and I will never know if it had too little content, is truly non-notable, was notable but deleted anyway, or was not yet notable.  The Steve  01:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on mergeI oppose a "merge and redirect" decision. There are several reasons for this: First, the article as it currently stands has zero information sourced to reliable sources (Ulrich's just lists publisher-provided info), so there is nothing supported by reliable sources here. Second, what goes for this journal, goes for all the other journals from this publisher: are we going to present info on each and every one of their journals (in a neutral way) in the article on the publisher? I already see them opening the bottles of champagne... Third, if the article is not deleted but only replaced by a redirect, we'll have to put that redirect on our watchlists, because given this publishers history of trying to spam WP, we can expect regular attempts to revert the redirect. If there is no redirect, any recreation will pop up on the new article feed and is likely to be picked up by someone. (Of course, this third reason is just an argument of convenience, my first two arguments are the most important ones). --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to a redirect result with no merge. If there is nothing to merge, it's an editorial decision anyway. However, if there is a redirect there, I prefer to be able to see the previous article. Similarly, I have no problem with a delete result. It's the delete then redirect that I don't like, for various reasons, mostly to do with "regular editor" convenience.  The Steve  22:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to MTV_Roadies#Series_details. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Shahi

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

Single time reality show winner. No other notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to MTV_Roadies#Series_details - From what I see, her only claim to fame was as a season 3 contestant for MTV Roadies and, considering there have been nearly ten seasons, it would be tedious to have articles for all of the winners and especially contestants where it would be countless. Naturally, Google News found mostly India-based news articles here (minor mention), here (minor mention, notes that she was rejected for season 2) and here (oldest article of them all, 2005, notes her season 2 attempt and talks about her duration with MTV Roadies). Whatever normal everyday job she has, it's probably non-notable. Like any India-related article, it is possible additional sources may not be English but I think they would probably be relevant to her MTV Roadies fame. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 16:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. None of the keep !voters gave a policy compliant reason for keeping the article that meets the WP:NOT and WP:N concerns raised by other editors. If someone does want to transwiki, I will provide a copy in your user space or by email. If someone has a good redirect target, feel free to recreate the page as a redirect; there wasn't a clear enough consensus her to indicate what the target should be, but I trust future editors can work that out Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legoland Miniland Washington DC

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

I don't see any reason for having this article. It is nothing more but a gallery--really, a list, with pictures of Lego and of the original building, plus wikilinks and weblinks. This is not a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

Legoland Miniland New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Legoland Miniland Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Drmies (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Keep.] I disagree that this article should be deleted. The content is unique on the internet and it is an educational resource. This doesn't seem unlike other lists on other areas of wikipedia, whether a list of historic landmarks in New York or list of attractions at Disneyworld. Importantly, Legoland does NOT list or display the names of more than few of the several hundred buildings presented. Therefore, to nearly every visitor, this is the only collection anywhere cataloging these important structures. As an educator, standing there without any reference provided by the park, see this as a resource and an invaluable tool for teachers and students. I would like to see additional lists of other sites around the world. This is clearly an educational article and had it been available for our field trip last year would have used it. jsasson (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Move it to Wikivoyage per Chris if they want it, or redirect it to Legoland if they don't want it. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Nyttend. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What clear consensus? Nyttend says either transwiki or redirect; jsasson says keep without offering any policy-based arguments; Chris857 and Drmies discuss transwikiing but don't actually give a vote; you say keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single vote to delete. Votes are "Keep", "Keep", "Don't delete", and "Keep", which is the same as Keep. The closing admin can decide if he or she wishes to add anything to that. Clearly the consensus is to Keep the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not about !vote counting. It is about the weight of the arguments based on policies and guidelines. I will point out that that nobody has actually addressed the reasons for nomination which is that articles are not picture galleries and must meet notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "don't delete" vote addresses the reasons for nomination — if we accept either of my suggestions, we won't have an article on this topic. Keeping to transwiki results in an A5 speedy deletion once the transwiki is performed, and redirecting means that we don't have an article. We shouldn't delete pages unless their contents are bigtime problematic (e.g. copyvios) or unless they're not likely to be good redirects; when the contents are innocuous enough to stay around in page histories, like here, we shouldn't delete them when the titles themselves can be used productively. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. I amend my statement to be almost nobody has addressed the reasons for nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause for Concern

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

This article is about two topics. It's about a do-it-yourself cassette label style in the 1980s and also about a band of this name based in South Bend, Indiana. The first appears to fail WP:GNG, and the latter fails WP:BAND. Additionally, custom searches such as these [23], [24] have yielded zero results in Google News archives. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 15:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hat and Mirror Shades

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

A neologism that exists, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Rather, sources simply use the term in the context of other topics. As such, the topic fails WP:NEO. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Duck (drinking game)

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

An article about a drinking game that fails WP:GNG. Finding no coverage in reliable sources. Coverage exists about a restaurant/lounge in Rome with this name (see [25]) and about a record of this name by a band (see [26]), but not finding any for the drinking game. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's several references on Google Books to books of drinking games containing this though most aren't on preview (I found: 101 Great Drinking Games by Andrew Studdard, Social Lubrication by Temple Drake, The Book of Beer Awesomeness by Ben Applebaum & Dan DiSorbo[27], The complete book of beer drinking games by Andy Griscom & Scott Johnston), and other non-fiction books that cover heavy-drinking subcultures (e.g. Making doctors by Simon Sinclair). Also miscellaneous mentions in other media[28][29][30][31][32][33]. This is a well-known British game not something that would fall under WP:MADEUP. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Colapeninsula or someone else can put the sources into the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded Records

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

A topic about a record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are only yielding passing mentions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 18:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya VPN Router

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

Once a Prod, disputed as merging was preferable to deletion. No attempt at merging, no sources to help in merging, and no article specified to which to merge. Very little information provided that would be viable elsewhere. Suggesting deletion. Nouniquenames 15:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion Of course no one has tried to fix/merge this article! I have not had a chance to explore this article or the wiki-deletion-criteria provided by nominator (must logoff in minutes), I just wanted to make others aware that this nominator seems to be out to delete any article with the word "Avaya" in its title. This same nominator was also one of those who successfully deleted the Nortel wiki-project which of course means that those who are interestred in maintaining these articles have no way of finding out about these deletion proposals. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot vote twice in an AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Will userfy on request as several contributors have recommended this. SpinningSpark 23:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TELL MAMA

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

This is one of those entities that looks like it might be notable, only upon examination, it's shown otherwise. Let's look at the sourcing:

The threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is evidently not met. I'm sure this is a worthy initiative, but our job is to reflect real-world notability, not generate it. And by the way, the related Hope not Hate is plagued with similar issues. Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment TELL MAMA/Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks has some coverage in news media but mainly used as a source of information rather than as the main subject[34][35][36][37], so it may not be notable even though it does receive UK government funding[38]. It seems to be connected to various other organisations under which heading it might be covered: e.g. it's an initiative of Faith Matters; and it may merit a mention under Islamophobia if that had a nation-by-nation section. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand the nom's concern with some of those sources, it seems to me the author(s) decided to cram every link they could find in there. I think the GNG threshold is not being met here. Removing the unimportant blog articles and self-published stuff, we have some minor references from governmental entities in the UK and recognized Muslim organizations, but I don't think that's enough. Google and Bing don't really show that this has received significant third-party coverage. All in all I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. §FreeRangeFrog 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It's clear that many of the sources are not reliable, independent sources. The remaining links, including press releases from sources not directly affiliated with the organization, should be enough to establish notability as per WP:GNG. I agree that it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. §everal⇒|Times 18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citing press releases is discouraged under WP:SPS (which is sensible, given their lack of peer review and promotional purpose); I still don't see independent coverage justifying an article at this point. - Biruitorul Talk 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm quite aware of the policy, though I'm also aware that few sources are fully impartial, especially when non-profit organizations are concerned. For that reason I might consider this press release as a contributor to notability while all the blog posts are not -- unless they are written by established experts, as stated under WP:SPS. §everal⇒|Times 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not full impartiality we demand of sources, but a certain degree of distance between subject and source. Thus it's one thing to have a politician's office announcing he's throwing some taxpayer money at an organization (the press release in question); it would be quite another to have a newspaper reporting said politician has thrown money at said group. Even if the press release is to be included, there should at least be some independent coverage; an article can't legitimately stand alone on first-hand material of this type. - Biruitorul Talk 03:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 15:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm weeding through the sources now and I'm removing a lot of them that are pretty blatantly unusable as either a trivial or reliable source. I would venture to say that this blog: [39] could be usable since the guy who wrote it is a sociologist that is considered an authority on Islamophobia. I'm going to wade through the rest of them, but I want to state here as well as on the article's page that listing multiple sources that aren't considered to be reliable or even trivial can often backfire because rather than make it look more notable, it actually makes it look less notable. I know that I usually see it this way: "if you feel like you need to add 30+ sources that are unusable as sources in any context, it means that there must not be anything out there to show notability at all." I'm not going to condemn it so soon, but I do want to state that doing citation overkill can often discredit a page pretty quickly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Userfy. I'm kind of torn on this one. This organization seems to be right on the cusp of gaining notability, but it seems like it's a little too soon right now for it to have an article. After trimming the sources to remove the ones that were either citation overkill of the same thing or outright unusable, here's what I have left:
  1. [40] This is a trivial source that merely confirms that its founder also created Faith Matters. Trivial sources can't show notability no matter how many you use and notability is not inherited by the founder potentially being a person notable enough for his own article.
  2. [41] The organization is mentioned in this source, but while it's not exactly a brief mention it's not really an in-depth mention either. It shows that the organization is quoted and would be potentially usable as a RS for backing up information in other articles, but it doesn't really show a lot of notability.
  3. [42] Primary source, can't show notability. I used this mostly to back up a small factoid.
  4. [43] This one is fairly good. The author of this article is considered to be an authority, so him writing an article on TELL MAMA would be usable. The only issues I have stem from the facts that he's speaking at the launch of the project (meaning that this could be considered primary) and this reads almost like it was taken predominantly from a press release from the service.
  5. [44] This confirms that the group received funding. They are the main focus of the article, but I'm not sure that this is the sort of thing that gives notability.
  6. [45] It's briefly mentioned here, so only usable as a trivial source.
  7. [46] This is a news report by Al Jazeera and the link is posted by the news organization. It appears to be about the group so this would potentially be usable to show notability.
  8. [47] This actually goes into detail about the service's launching, so it's usable.
  9. [48] This one I'm halfsies on whether it's usable or not as a RS because I'm not familiar with the site. However, this is yet another report of the service launching- we need more than just reports of it launching to show a depth of coverage.
  10. [49] I left this one on because it's a local council, although this would probably be more of a potentially trivial source than one that could show notability. I think that this is also one of the groups that partner with TELL MAMA, so it'd be something that would be considered WP:PRIMARY because of this.
  11. [50] This is a blog by the group's founder, so it's a primary source.
  12. [51], [52] These are both Press TV pieces, one of which is uploaded by Faith Matters. I'm unsure as to whether PTV would be usable as a source to show notability.
I'm just sort of neutral on this. The organization has received more notice than some, but most of this has been to state that the program has launched and that it exists. I think that it's just a little too soon for an article about this specifically, so I recommend userfying it to the original editor for him to work on. It's likely that it will gain more coverage to where notability would not be a question, but we can't guarantee that it will. Stuff does happen, after all. What I recommend in the meantime is that we look for alternatives, such as creating a subsection in Faith Matters about the program (since they're coordinating it) and redirecting to that section. If notability can be shown for the service's founder, it's possible that we could create an article for him with a subsection about TELL MAMA and redirect there, although I think at this time it'd be better as a subsection and redirect to Faith Matters, as they're the main force for the service and Mughal is a part of Faith Matters. As far as the group's association with notable persons or groups, notability is not inherited.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify or Delete with no prejudice. A recently founded charity getting their message out, and that message carried willingly by supporters. What is needed in in depth coverage by independent sources, which isn't likely in the very short term, unless they score some very big / high profile wins (anything possible in politics). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Cement Manufacturers Association (BCMA)

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

No evidence of notability, not enough content of value, no references of any relevance. besiegedtalk 23:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a lot of work, but does seem to be a serious instrument of a larger country Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far it seems to be little more than an excuse to have direct links to their member companies directly in the wiki. To my eyes, it looks like little more than shameless advertising. besiegedtalk 17:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Bangladesh Cement Manufacturers Association is a small developing country trade organization, but the article has two reliable sources and has been completely redone since the AfD nomination, to include links to member companies, and two links to BCMA from member company articles. The significant increase in cement exports is documented. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking through the sources, this is a notable organization. I added in a reference to where they held an event where the Industries Minister of India showed up and talked about cement. [53] The news media covered it, so the organization must be seen as notable. Dream Focus 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridging the Gap (Ali Vegas album)

edit
Bridging the Gap (Ali Vegas album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any reliable sources that deal with this subject. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn New sources have been brought to light which has led to the station being identified under another name. I'll therefore withdraw the nomination and we can get on with moving the article to its correct name. Thanks to all that took the time to sort this one out. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denvilles halt

edit
AfDs for this article:
Denvilles halt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NRVE as the station is not mentioned in any of the "standard" works on English railways (see talk page). Of the listed sources, one appears to be WP:USERGENERATED without any evidence of the station and the other appears not to meet WP:RELIABLESOURCES as a (now offline) web page containing no sources and information which is contradictory and unsupported by the standard works. As a side note, the name "Denville Halt" is known to have been the former name of Warblington railway station. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have checked in five books - two are lists of railway passenger stations, two are histories of major railway companies (and considered to be authoritative texts), and one is a history of a particular line; I have also examined the four online sources given in the article. None of these nine sources (Byegone Havant excepted, see below) mention a station named "Denvilles", other than in the context of an older name for Warblington railway station. Several of them, including the three books which are histories, mention the "Battle of Havant", and some note that during the period of dispute, passengers were conveyed by omnibus for part of their journeys; but they don't state where the northern end of this service was, although the implication is that it was in the Havant area. The only source that mentions "Denvilles" in this context is Byegone Havant, but that states

    The L.S.W.R. did, however, start a service from London but passengers had to alight at a temporary platform which was erected in Denvilles. They were then taken to Cosham by horse-drawn omnibus, for a fare of 6d., where they caught another L.S.W.R. train into Portsmouth

    - a "temporary platform", not a station; and "in Denvilles", not "named Denvilles". More comments at Talk:Denvilles halt#Existence? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep/rename, depending on validity of source. I've found a source which shows that there was a station at or near the location indicated, but called Havant New, not Denvilles. See Talk:Denvilles halt for details. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baka (fool)

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

Per WP:NOT#DICT: The subject is unencyclopedic. No inline citation, and none of the sources are verifiable. An online search confirms the poor encyclopedic value of the subject. AshLey Msg 12:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The sources are cited inline, and are verifiable - The article uses WP:HARVARD citation style, which is not the most common, but is an accepted standard.
    The topic (as with all topics) is 'encyclopedic' if there are enough RSs to write an article, and in this case there might be. It may need cleanup, and improvement, but it doesn't definitely require deletion. —Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources are verifiable. Subject matter is not gutter slang but repeatedly appears in historical references and literature going back to Qin Dynasty. Weak results in English language search and a virtual copy-paste translation of the Japanese Wikipedia page for the same subject [54] do not mean there is an absence of worthwhile sources. This article needs refinement, not an AfD nomination. Jun Kayama 01:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I was expecting to find an elaborated dictionary entry, as I couldn't imagine what else could be said about 馬鹿. But the source by Michael Carr, at least, suggests that there may be something to say about this word as a word, separate from content on the concept of fools. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cnilep. Also this needs to be renamed to Baka (word) or Baka (term), as it is about a word, not a fool. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone else. This is a notable word, has been the subject of reliable coverage, and is a major part of Japanese culture. Of course, it could be moved to Baka (word) since it's about the word and not about the concept of a fool. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since all three reasons given for deletion are untrue, I wonder if this nomination was a mistake or <grin> perhaps an ironic bakarashii joke. Agree that Baka (word) would be a better title. Keahapana (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete Not significantly different from the article which was the subject of the previous AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dandurand

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

Likely autobio. Possible recreation of Jeff Duran. Many references do not mention subject, other references prove subject nothing more than an uncredited extra in most mentioned appearances. Article created by SPA with name one letter off from previous AFD submitter of Jeff Duran article. Article simply self-promotion of non-notable subject. | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Speedy Delete' and salt. Disruptive reposting. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Doesn't look much different to the thrice deleted and now protected earlier version. References not up to standard. Given that the content shows so little apparent success, I have had a vague wondering if this is in fact not self promotion but a disguised attack. Probably not. Not notable at the moment. Reconsideration can be given if the film turns out to be a success. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitman

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

I came across this while working on some requests for book articles and noticed that this author/instructor lacks sources to show notability. I did a search and found where he's quoted in various articles, but he's never actually the focus of any of them. I tried seeing if any of his books received reviews, but was unable to find any in-depth reviews from a reliable source. He might be an authority on various forms of martial arts, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable. I'm bringing this to AfD rather than PROD or speedy it because there might be sources out there I missed and I want to give it a "fighting chance". I'm honestly not sure if he competed in anything and would pass WP:ATHLETE because what I could find was so limited. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Every Season

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

Unremarkable band. Not a single citation, reference, or third-party source. Article does not establish notability. – Richard BB 08:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There might be some foreign language sources available, but I just wasn't able to find anything that would be considered reliable and independent. There are routine merchant and "junk" hits, as well as some non-notable user reviews on various sites and blogs. If anyone can find something I missed then I'm persuadable, but offhand this just doesn't seem to be a notable band.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sanukran Thinjom

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that Mr. Thiniom exists, which of course insufficient for inclusion and does not address the concern raised in the PROD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 16:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond film cast lists

edit
List of James Bond film cast lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article and it and seemingly violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The individual cast lists can be found on the film articles. SchroCat (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - This apparently started out as a list of cast members, which seems fine... however its been moved around a bunch, and because it goes back so far and involves so many other overlaps (e.g., List of James Bond characters), I really haven't fully explored all those interactions. So can someone familiar, like Schrodinger, tell me if this was spun off into indvidual movie lists, or those merged here, or just developed in parallel together? Similarly, why the change of heart since you've been editing this article for a while? Also, what was going on in March with the various moves. That's where it makes it kind of hard to track. If those could be explained a bit in the nom it might make things clearer. Because at first glance it looks like a fine article with a ridiculous title, but I suspect there's substantial overlap in content, so can you please explore that a bit more. Shadowjams (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Shadowjams, To be honest I am not sure about some of the history of the article (which pre-dates me by a couple of years), but it has always broadly been a list of cast lists. I undertook some work on it earlier in the year to see if anything could be done to try and improve the (from this version to the current form), but it's really not worth the candle: it's still just a repeated list of cast lists. In March moved titles from "List of James Bond films cast members" to "List of James Bond film cast lists", which was more appropriate given the content the article had always had. A drive by editor changed it to "List of characters and cast members in the individual James Bond films", which was inappropriate (and just too horrible for words) so it was changed back. Either way the article as it stands—indeed as it has always stood—is an incomplete list of cast lists of those who appear in the films. These lists only replicate what is in the individual film articles themselves and because of that it is utterly redundant. Comparisons between the roles and the actors within the films can better be done through the two articles List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series‎. - SchroCat (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are a lot of lists relating to James Bond, which is fine given the breadth of the franchise, but a cast list is in all of those individual articles (as Schrodinger says) and beyond that they are utterly redundant. If we want a good way to find cast listings we have List of James Bond films, List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series. Or the category for all of those too. The problem with this much overlap is that it makes vandalism harder to deal with, especially the subtle variety, it makes updates and improvements more difficult to coordinate, and even more difficult to sync up, and provides little to no benefit to the reader, and that's before you factor in the risk of misinformation. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are simply lists that can be found in the main film articles. If you want to see the cast list for Dr. No then you can simply look it up at the article about the film. James Bond cast lists are just not an encyclopedic topic in their bare form. {{James Bond characters}} already exists to aid navigation between the various articles about the characters, and then you have lists that do cover James Bond casting in an encyclopedic manner with List of recurring actors and actresses in the James Bond film series, List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, List of James Bond allies, List of Bond girls, List of James Bond villains and List of James Bond henchmen. These latter lists structure the information around a particular James Bond topic, but the cast lists article doesn't do that, it just compiles the cast lists from each article, basically making it redundnant. In terms of looking at this, does it offer an encylopedic topic to a reader that is not more comprehensively covered by one of the other aforementioned articles? Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE....William 11:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see redundancy as a problem for navigational aids -afterr all, we maintain both lists and categories, for example. If the concern is maintainance (a proper concern to have), we can use templates to have a single point which has the content. Calls to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as often is, seem unjustified: there is no notability or inappropriateness concern here. --Cyclopiatalk 13:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{James Bond characters}} already exists to navigate between the character articles, and navboxes are much more effective than standalone articles in providing this type of functionality. Besides, a list article must be notable as a topic for inclusion on Wikipedia as per WP:LISTN, which states a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Now, you can make that argument for Bond girls or Bond villains since there is secondary coverage of them as a subject, but there is nothing in the article that makes the case that the James Bond film casts are themselves a notable topic that justify their own article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have tons of lists of lists, and even a List of lists of lists: -they're thought as navigational aids for related topics. It's not a couple of other stuff, it's a long standing practice. If our guidelines do not reflect the long standing consensus on them, perhaps they ought to. That a navbox is better is entirely subjective, and the more aids to our readers, the better. While "it's useful" is not a rationale for normal articles, it is for lists, because they're things meant to help. Moreover, there is discussion of Bond film casts as a topic: [55] , [56] , [57]. --Cyclopiatalk 13:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, I think I may be being a bit dense here, but can you explain the connection between the three Google books and an article which consists of a list of film casts which exist without much supporting text—and certainly without anything that discusses thebackground to the choices of the actors for those roles? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Betty asked for evidence of James Bond film casts as a topic per se. --Cyclopiatalk 14:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not discuss James Bond cast lists as a subject, they specifically discuss the casting of the James Bond character, and an article for this subject already exists at James Bond in film. I don't dispute that other "lists of lists" exist on Wikipedia, but the guidelines on this are very clear: each and every one is still subject to our notability criteria; some may satisfy notability, some may not, but either way their existence has no bearing on establishing the specific notability of James Bond cast lists, which so far hasn't been done. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Priddy

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

Christina Applegate's Mother. Notability is not inherited. Has only done minor roles in acting, mostly as a one-off character in TV through the 80s. I just nominated her solo album for deletion, which was called "obscure" by its sole cited source. Gigs (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many articles talk about her, and while most of them are more focused on her daughter, she is herself known as a breast-cancer advocate as well for her acting/singing career. Here is an example of an article focused on Priddy rather than on her daughter. On balance, enough exists for a keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 02:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Springs High School

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is for a high school. Articles on high schools are typically kept per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No valid grounds for deletion presented; lack of information is an editing problem. No indication that any sort of WP:BEFORE search was followed. Longstanding consensus is to keep articles about secondary schools, a consensus which I actively support. I'm just going to copy-paste this since the nominator seems to have put in about that much work making a huge series of equally dubious nominations. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BEFORE has 0 to do with a keep rationale, and before works both ways... did you check it to ensure it was not a hoax, for instance? Lack of information might well indicate an article's terribly beyond repair, or just generally not notable. However here, it's a high school and we have a clear brightline policy on those that's rarely controversial. And it obviously is a real high school, so keep. Shadowjams (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Cohn Comprehensive High School

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW j⚛e deckertalk 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bank High School

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Side High School (Memphis, Tennessee)

edit
South Side High School (Memphis, Tennessee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soddy Daisy High School

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Mountain Middle High School

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article is for a high school. Articles on high schools are typically kept per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - School's web site confirms that it includes High School students. No valid grounds for deletion presented; lack of information is an editing problem, not a notability problem. No indication that any sort of WP:BEFORE search was followed. Longstanding consensus is to keep articles about secondary schools, a consensus which I actively support. I'm just going to copy-paste this since the nominator seems to have put in about that much work making a huge series of equally dubious nominations. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 19:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoyah High School (Tennessee)

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

I feel that the "Gay Straight Alliance Club" section should be moved into a another article concerning gay rights. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information, other than the aforementioned section, and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Speedy keep per precedent for established high schools Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne County High School (Tennessee)

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW, per precedent for schools. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waverly Central High School

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

Little information is contained in the article. I feel that the article contains little to no relevant information and, therefore, request the article to be considered for deletion. If I my request is unreasonable/unsubstantiated, please notify me. MisterCrazy8 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 18:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Salad

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

There is no indication in this article that the band meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Their album has not charted and they've not had a national or international tour (just a few cities in Brazil). Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


What is happening here is a bit more convoluted than meets the eye. The Facebook page for Bad Salad made a post earlier today asking for their 35,000 fans to do what they can to keep this article up. It is blatantly clear this article is a product of vanity, in fact, I observed a certain fan on Facebook claiming he alone made the Wikipedia page. My fear is that the force of such a grassroots Facebook campaign might keep this article up longer than it needs to, and confuse a lot of metal fans. In fact, the only reason I stumbled across Bad Salad is because they were worked into the "jazz influence" section of the Progressive Metal article. Sure hope these guys, and their album, get deleted off Wikipedia.

User:Churnice —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for DELETE. Don't even come close to meeting any criteria for being notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.136.205 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping the page. As I have already said, the band is listed on progarchives.com, which only lists bands which are relevant to the genre. Just as a thermometer of their influence, Bad Salad are three times more popular on facebook than bands like Circus Maximus and Seventh Wonder, which both have an article here on Wikipedia and are both big names in the prog metal genre.

Matti.happy (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7: as far as I can tell, no major write-ups, reviews, or even fansites. Don't know where they got 35,000 fans, but I don't see how this meets the basic "credible assertion of notability" criterion. The reason A7 applies specifically to bands is that anybody can get together and make music, and a fair amount of people can even release that music, so speedy deletion is allowed for any articles on bands that don't show that they're anything more than just that - a group of people who've made some music and released it. And I think this is one of those articles. (If I seem to be repeating myself, I'm just trying to pre-emptively respond to any objections to what I know, at the very least, will seem like a possibly overly bold move. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see how your points hold, from a strict interpretation of the music band notability rules, and I guess for Wikipedia being strict to rules is essential to its own mantainment. I beg to differ on the criteria used to judge whether a band is notable or not. Nowadays, the popularity of a band is also mainly measured by popularity on social media (facebook, myspace, youtube - who watchs MTV anymore? Do we expect prog metal to go on tv or radio and get on charts?) and with time, the standard criteria of "having a label" is not going to hold anymore thanks to services like CDBaby and similars and due to the fact that means to produce a professional quality recording are getting cheaper and cheaper and therefore proficient bands can bypass labels. Anyway, yes, from a strict interpretation of the notability rules, I agree to the deletion of the page then. But I see cases like this becoming more and more popular in the future. Matti.happy (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matti.happy - I was in a band who is listed on progarchives.com, we released 3 albums & performed with bands such as Caravan, Curved Air, Traffic, etc... I don't think we were notable enough for a wiki page, Bad Salad comes no where near enough notability I'm afraid. Inclusion on one websites database does not prove notoriety or notability. 92.23.136.205 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wiki savvy but I'm a fan of the band and would hate to see this article go. Bad Salad was #1 for 2 years on Roadrunner Records' (Dream Theater, Nickelback, Rush, Slipknot) website for unsigned artists, SignMeTo. You do know Roadrunner Records!? There were over 22.000 artists with profiles on there, so how is being #1 all-time on those charts not notable? I wish my band was as insignificant. Bad Salad mentioned on Roadrunner Records' website Bad Salad's independently released debut "Uncivilized" was also one of the best selling albums on CD Baby recently, to the point where CD Baby used them as poster boys for the Brazilian market, including them in a full-page ad on the Brazilian Rolling Stone magazine. Also, I'd like to mention that the person who is most interested in getting this article removed is someone who is personally bothered by the band, for whatever reason. He has gone to their facebook page multiple times to attack the band members and their fans with homophobic, racist, and other downright hateful comments. He stated on the screenshots (that the band posted, and were later removed) that it would be his mission in life to get Bad Salad off the map. I have no idea why this person hates the band so much, but I hope his personal little crusade against them ends here, and that this article stays and gets improved upon with the proper external references/criterias Wikipedia requires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.47.149.12 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If being #1 on SignMeTo meant anything, there would be third-party articles mentioning this, like there are articles saying when a band does well in the Billboard charts or wins a major award or sells out a major tour. If they were number 1 for 2 years and nobody noticed this, it kind of suggests the honor doesn't mean much. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BAND, fails WP:GNG. I don't know about others, but I don't hate Bad Salad. They just don't meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lots of things don't. Richigi (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to the above IP, firstly, WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Secondly, SignMeTo sounds like a payed-for reward, and the fact that a band could sit at the top for two years makes me suspicious as to both its size and reliability. 22,000 artists may sound like a lot, but how many of these actually posted anything, or anything of value? As for CD Baby, you have given no references whatsoever to back up your claim. I have no idea who Bad Salad are - but there are lots of artists out there that are notable and I've never heard of. I still don't see this band as being notable at present. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been up for deletion for much longer than the customary 7 days. Pretty clear consensus to delete. Shouldn't it be gone by now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.128.138 (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Hala, Sindh. I appreciate that there is support for a merge here, but the article is entirely unencyclopaedic and devoid of ciations. The only reference given makes no mention of Nuh as far as I can tell in any spelling. There is nothing in the article that can be legitimately merged. However I will add some basic information to the Hala article from the source found by PWilkinson. This close is without prejudice to a properly referenced article being created at any time. SpinningSpark 19:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makhdum Nuh of Hala (Sindh)

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

Notablity - The article is clearly about a non-notable person. Nothing about this person remotely shows any clear cut signs of notablity TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hala, Sindh or Keep: Judging by the GBooks results for shorter versions of the name (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), this Suhrawardi pir is certainly seen as notable by reliable sources such as this one. However, what I currently seem to be picking up from them is approximate birth and death dates, a few anecdotes, some rather vague mentions of his writings, and the fact that his mausoleum in Hala is still an important religious centre - indeed, the modern city seems to have grown up round the mausoleum, rather than the original settlement a couple of miles away. If all we can manage on the man himself is a sentence, then the article is probably best redirected to the article on the city containing his mausoleum (which needs that much information in it anyway). If more detail can be reliably sources, then keeping and improving this article is probably the way to go. PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merging to Hala Sindh - I think this would be a valid way to solve the issue TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- This person is claimed to have been head of Sarwari Jamaat, which I gather to be some kind of Sufi sect. I would be happier if we started with an article on the sect, before we get articles about persons who have been its head. I am a Christian and know little of the subject. It may be that the subject is celebrated as a Sufi saint; if so, I would have expected him to be notable. However the present article is a poor one and needs improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a little more knowledge than you on Sufi sects, but still not a lot. In any case, this is not the only topic regarding Sufi saints which suffers from notablity issues. From the general trend, its almost certain that most of them are not celebrated enough to make an article on them. Its simply that most of these get far more info here because of overzealous writers and unsure reviewers. And they are one of the worst articles here
I believe a proper discussion on a majority of these articles, having a few people who actually know about the topic would help in determining what to do. This may solve a lot of problems with many articles TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud gap

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

WP:NEO that appears to be created by Laconic Security for the purpose of advertising, similar to the word "Comcastic". Fails GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The ghits are so thin on this one, it smells like self-promotion. If anything, it merits a blurb in the Cloud Computing article. Wouldn't even consider a redirect. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON of course, no problem with the article existing once the term becomes widely used. §FreeRangeFrog 23:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the paper that started it all (which isn't really the case, but is at least one paper that seems to often cited on this aspect of cloud computing security) is Mowbray 2009 which, as you can see, is three years old and doesn't use this term that's been made up on the spot by a company trying to sell us things. Our article on cloud computing security is fairly deficient. (See Mather, Kumaraswamy & Latif 2009 for one of the many books on this subject that is more detailed.) That's no excuse for our buying in to a fortnight-old advertising gimmick as if it were genuine scholarship on the matter, though.

    Of course, if this does end up being deleted, what obviously belongs here is Project Cloud Gap, a program run by the USDOD and ACDA between 1962 and 1968. ☺

  • Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Boldly closing as it appears the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aegrotat

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

Is, and always has been, a dictionary definition, same content is at wiktionary Moogsi (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is clearly not the answer. If a reader were to put "aegrotat" into the search box and hit "Go", xe should actually hit an article of some sort, considering that aegrotats do exist and are real things of centuries long standing. (A quick Google Books search turns up one book with an appendix listing aegrotats at the University of Cambridge back to the 18th century, and another discussing "payments aegrotanti" in 1572 and 1573 at Pembroke College.) Xe should either hit this, or British undergraduate degree classification#Aegrotat, which would need improvement if this were to be redirected. Neither option involves the use of the administrator deletion tool in any way. Ordinary editing with the edit tool gets us to both. Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article that could almost certainly be expanded if anyone wanted to do the research. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clogging up AfD with this nonsense was clearly the wrong thing to do. On reflection, there's plenty of room for informative content on this subject. Sorry, and thank you for your patience :) -- Moogsi (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of Moogsi's comment of 16 November and the lack of arguments supporting deletion, closing as "nomination withdrawn" may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aegrotats exist and have existed for a long time, and people will be looking in here, directly or via Google search for more information about aegrotats. I am tempted to say: "Something is encyclopaedic if people are likely to want to look in an encyclopaedia for information about it.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's painful reading this discussion which is already longer than both articles aegrotat and medical certificate. And notice that sick note is a red link. Per WP:NOTFORUM, we're here to build the encyclopedia, not to engage in idle discussion. And note that WP:DICDEF advises us to write about related subjects under a common heading rather than separately. The topic(s) ought therefore to be brought together but deletion is of no help in this. If someone will please close this talking shop, I will do what's appropriate. Warden (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously notable (e.g. [60]). Also, nom has withdrawn. --Cyclopiatalk 16:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Committee for Universities of Palestine

edit
British Committee for Universities of Palestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization's Wikipedia page consists solely of promotional material from the organization itself and no third party sources are cited. Unless this article can be expanded, it should be removed. Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despicability is not why this article is up for deletion. It is up for deletion because it contains only self-promotional material, cites no third party sources, and contains no evidence that it meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I understand. Thank you for the clarification.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Hyde

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

Non notable baseball player. De-prodded with no explanation given. AutomaticStrikeout 23:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_23&oldid=1142633992"