Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 15

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< 14 May	16 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armada 2526

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

Appears to fail notability as I can not find substantial reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On a very brief search for references, I found a press release and substantial preview at IGN. Worth further investigation. Will check further later today. Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Critic reviews listed at GameSpot. I'm not familiar with HonestGamers or Hooked Gamers, but coverage in the PC Gamer and PC Zone magazines satisfies notability guidelines. More at Metacritic, including Pelit. Marasmusine (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IGN preview, the PC Gamer review, and the PC Zone UK review are enough for the notability requirement, I think. I also see there is quite a lot of coverage on other websites ([1][2][3][4] for example), and although I'm not so sure about the reliability of these sources I think they should be taken into account. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:32, 21 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Dressler

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG seems questionable. bender235 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's a mess but could be cleaned up. It looks like he probably is a notable performer having made appearances worldwide, but I know nothing of the subject and I'm having some trouble establishing more than just listings of those performances as I don't speak Russian or Italian. There is an article in the Corriere della Sera newspaper here which demonstrates some notability. This is an article which I think is salvagable, if someone with the relevant expertise were to come along and do it; I have reached my limit. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As it stands, the article is a borderline copyright violation of this page. The article, as WP:BLP is woefully under sourced: it has a single link to the subject's own homepage. I really can't see how this article meets the notability criteria set down in WP:MUSICBIO. The subject is obviously very talented and has travelled to many countries, but that doesn't mean there should be an article. Academics are equally as well skilled and well travelled, but they have to meet WP:PROF. The point is: his he a cut above all the others in his profession? I can't see how he is. Sorry. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take Action! Vol. 8

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as a violation of WP:JNN, and possibly WP:BEFORE because some minor sources were found during the discussion when this article was first AfD'ed in 2009. (See first nomination link above.) Nominator is required to discuss in detail if and how the article's notability issues are any different now. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Nothing has changed since the previous nomination. As Doomsdayer520 notes, the "minor sources" found include a BeatCrav review and a dead link. The company that owns the BeatCrave site and the author karajones are of questionable reliability. Goodvac (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The compilation album that consists of nothing more than a tracklist fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG since the only source listed is for the tracklist itself. Aspects (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take Action! Vol. 7

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close because the nomination is procedurally invalid per WP:JNN. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compilation album that consists of nothing more than a tracklist fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG since the only source listed is for the tracklist itself. Aspects (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (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. The nominator's rationale is inapplicable as this is not a compilation but an organization or campaign, but at any rate the article meets CSD A7 and G11. Sandstein 05:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take Action!

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close because the nominator has violated WP:JNN by failing to say why it is non-notable. If there are any sharp-eyed admins on the Albums and Songs for Deletion page, note the insufficient copy-and-paste methods of the nominator. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The non-notable compilation series fails WP:GNG since it has zero reliable sources and has been tagged as being unsourced for over two years. Aspects (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-Lounge

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't about a 'comp', but a whole series of compilations. It's a notable and, it would seem, successful series: Billboard, Billboard, SPIN.--Michig (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Michig. I will also point out that the nominator's unhelpful reasoning of "Non-notable comp" has appeared in a bunch of recent nominations and clearly violates WP:JNN. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs posted by Michig. Robman94 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason as above. --74.5.25.40 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-notable my foot. This is a compilation series that has been very instrumental in introducing many people to the Lounge Music family of genres.Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how this is a "non-notable compilation". This is a release series that has been active for 15 years, has included over 40 separate titles, and is released and maintained by a major label. You can find literally hundreds of reviews for these discs on Amazon.com. Really, what more do you need? This is far from being some sort of $3.99, no liner notes, no-frills, Wayne Newton compilation CD you find at a truck stop! Could we please drop this nomination and close the discussion? WillieBlues (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I found this page while looking for information. Isn't that what an encyclopedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.82.116 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2011 (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. The "close" opinion does not address the merits of the article, leaving us with a "delete" consensus. Sandstein 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Satago

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close because the nominator violated WP:JNN by saying nothing other than the very unhelpful and vague "Non-notable comp." --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compilation album that has an article consisting of two sentences fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG since it has zero reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nescafe Open Up Party Live!

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - Due to insufficient reasoning. The nominator has done a quick copy-and-paste operation for about eight different album articles, with nothing said except the very unhelpful "Non-notable comp". The nomination violates WP:JNN and possibly WP:BEFORE. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you spend more time looking at the merits of the article and less second guessing good faith. Szzuk (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compilation album that consists of mostly non-notable artists that was used to promote Nescafe and a concert fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG since it has zero reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ref, no keep. Szzuk (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (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. The "close" opinion does not address the merits of the article, leaving us with a "delete" consensus. Sandstein 05:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philly Sound Clash

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - The nomination is a quick copy-and-paste in which the nominator did not even try to provide a useful rationale or any fruit for discussion by others. The nomination is invalid and violates WP:JNN, and possibly several different requirements of WP:BEFORE. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compilation album that consists of mostly non-notable bands that was used to promote a car share program fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG since it has zero reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (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 ARK Music Factory. And delete, since no reason to retain is given by those who do not expressly give a "delete" opinion. Sandstein 05:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Dvornik

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

Non-notable singer/actress. No reliable sources cited and I can't find any. J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ARK Music Factory. She's one of the other artists which got a few press mentions in the wake of Rebecca Black.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to ARK Music Factory, per above. Kinaro^(talk)^(contribs) 03:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ARK Music Factory. If she has notoriety eventually will be made again. Stephanie J Stone^(talk)^(contribs) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rogers (comedian)

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

Contested PROD of BLP article. Although the article offers one source, this source, an IMDb listing, doesn't actually mention the subject of the article. No other Reliable sources offered or found, so subject would seem non-notable at present. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To combat the proposed deletion, references have been added that list comedy organizations in which the subject "Jonathan Rogers" is a regular performer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supes28 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, there's the problem. None of the sources or notes actually mention the subject of the article. The IMdb link for the movie "Medallion" due out next year does not mention Jonathan Rogers. (Here's the link). The first Facebook link would hardly be a reliable source anyway, but as it is returning a message saying "This content is currently unavailable", we can't say what was on the page. The third reference is actually a Wikipedia page, which might indeed include Hamilton County as one of the more affluent places in the US, but doesn't actually contain the quote it is used to verify; however this isn't really a problem because it has absolutely no bearing on the notability of the subject anyway. The fourth link, to Morty's Comedy Club, doesn't mention the subject, and I can't find him on the site, although you might be able to provide a link. The same applies to the link to the Howlin' Wolf in New Orleans. The Facebook link in the external links section does work, but doesn't really reveal much and isn't a reliable source anyway. The "Comedy Channel" link offered in the External Links section does link to a video on Youtube but it's "Jonathan Rogers Comedy Channel" rather than the Comedy Channel. Youtube videos aren't a reliable source; he may well have appeared on stage at the Howlin' Wolf venue, but what we really need, at the very least, are reviews and/or substantial coverage in newspapers or other media, which hasn't been provided. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG and WP:RS and WP:BIO and lots and lots and lots of other excellent reasons. Qworty (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2011 (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 no consensus. With a tendency to keep as sources were found during the AfD. Sandstein 17:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jitsu Foundation

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

Questionable organisation with no independent sources to justify the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no independent sources to support this organization's notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent support found for claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over 100 Clubs within the UK, that should be more than enough. DrJunge (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found no independent sources covering this organization, so it seems to fail WP:V. If you have some good reliable sources I'd be happy to change my vote. I also don't put much stock in self-reported organization sizes since my experience is that they're usually grossly inflated. Papaursa (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are several references to the foundation in the external links section. The article claims to be involved with many clubs across the UK, while many clubs across the UK attest their affiliation to the organisation. If one discounts the references from any club affiliated with the foundation then one arrives at a paradox; namely that the larger and more influential the foundation becomes, the fewer acceptable reference sources there are. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no luck with the external links finding significant independent coverage. Also, I disagree with your premise about size. If an organization is large and significant enough it will be mentioned in articles or books about the art, not just on the web sites of participating dojos. I have nothing against the Jitsu Foundation, I just am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the technical skill used to reference is quite low, but many of them are fine. For example, one reference linked to the main page of a local newspaper instead of the article's archive page. All I had to do was type the article title in the website's search bar and I got the story. For example, this article (published in July 2000) says that The Jitsu Foundation developed from a club set up in Keighley 42 years ago, and in July 2000 had about 3,000 exponents worldwide. I've corrected the reference formatting accordingly. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Telegraph and Argus coverage would appear to satisfy the coverage requirements to meet notability - if some more coverage could be found that would be excellent! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:37, 24 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FinalBurn Alpha

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

The only reliable secondary source I could find was an extremely brief mention in a GameSetWatch interview [5], which doesn't tell us enough to really include this topic in the encyclopedia anywhere. Marasmusine (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable soruces to establish this as a notable aracde emulator. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found scraps of content that mention the emulator in passing here and there, e.g., [6][7], but they're focusing on the emulator only in a tangental way; in other words, these sources do not allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:22, 21 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smhss patharam

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

Un-notable school. Who needs names? ^{talk the talk} 18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability excludes schools and educational institutes. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reasons why we keep high schools are given in the essay WP:NHS. Sure this page needs much expansion but that is what stubs are for. Indian schools rarely have much in the way of Internet presence so to avoid systemic bias we should await the finding of local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Crazy (song)

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

Non-notable song. Author even points out how non-notable the song is: "the song was not reviewed by any major critics"; "the song was not recommended by any of the critics reviewing the album"; "the song also has no music video or official remixes; "the song did not appear on any major music charts". Charts shown are those listed on WP:BADCHARTS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but the song is a single by an notable artist, and an important single too. The song may not have been reviewed, because it was only featured on a complimentary album! Please don 't delete this! I work hard on all my articles! - (talk) 6:24, 2 May 2011 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Didn't chart, and hasn't been critically reviewed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS, as the article states it was not reviewed by any professionals and only charted on iTunes and Amazon, which are not acceptable charts per WP:BADCHARTS. Aspects (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2011 (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 withdrawn by nominator. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kickin' It

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After, please salt the ground to prevent recreation. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Surprisingly, this television show is apparently scheduled to premiere next month, according to The Hollywood Reporter. My keep recommendation is "weak" because this isn't much of an article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing this nomination because that references were added. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:24, 15 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Two England

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

Article is a clear and pointless copy of BBC Two, both BBC Two Wales and BBC Two England appear to have the same programming, thus should both redirect to the same article. Editors, with the exception of one appear to have a consensus with making the article a redirect on the talkpage at Talk:BBC Two England. User:GEAT BEOWULF repeatedly re-creates the article whenever it is changed back to a redirect or edited in a way that appears to conform to it being deleted/removed, possibly a case of WP:OWN. -=- Adam Walker -=- 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 'BBC Two England' is simply just 'BBC Two (Network)', BBC Two Scotland, NI and Wales can opt out of Network at anytime, of which Scotland, NI and occasional Wales do. A possible protection on the page may also be needed. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No such channel exists. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:It is the same channel as BBC Two & there is nothing in the article that shows any specific difference that would warrant a separate section of the BBC Two article, let alone an entirely new article. It should redirect to BBC Two, just like BBC One England does to BBC One. Mrmatiko (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mrmatiko. I would also recommend protecting it. Doh5678 Talk 17:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, if you say that somebody keeps creating it. Who needs names? ^{talk the talk} 18:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I'm not convinced a redirect is needed. See this text currently in the BBC Two article: "There is no specific BBC Two England, this role is fulfilled by the network BBC Two." —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. BBC Two England is the same as BBC Two, but outside of England "BBC Two" may also refer to the local version so the name "BBC Two England" is used - for example see List of channels on Freesat. Peter E. James (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Clearly a case of WP:OWN. Even cleaning up the crappy way it is written results in a revert by the owner to the same crappy form it is now in. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect does not appear necessary, since "there is no specific BBC Two England". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant variant of BBC Two. This article could/should have been A10 Speedy Deleted as a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Kapgains (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A completely useless copy of BBC Two, BBC Two England is an organisation that simply does not exist and it is completely insane to have a page on it. It is confusing to those who want to find out and it is far better without. I would suggest a redirect, as there are a number of links in other articles to BBC Two England (used to differentiate from BBC Two Scotland, NI and Wales), but the user who maintains the page keeps deleting the redirects. It is therefore best to delete the page. Rafmarham (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nahid Kabir

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

NN academic. Fails WP:PROF nafSadh did say 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Funny! This article was created by the Subject herself! It opposes WP:AB :@ --nafSadh did say 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Ragib was the one who tagged Nahid Kabir with PROD. So he has been notified. This notification shall not be counted as Campaigning--nafSadh did say 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clicking on the Google News link shows what looks like significant coverage and commentary on her work in the Australian media, e.g. ABC broadcasters and Sydney Morning Herald. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one interview of her, mentions in several op-eds. Is it significant enough for academics notability criteria? --nafSadh did say 18:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough for WP:Prof, nor is GS record. Arguments for keep will have to be made on the basis of general notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as author m because of the reviews of her books (I added them to the article, based on searches of Book Review Digest, Book Review Index, and Worldcat). I recognize everyone does not have easy access to BRD and BRI, but everyone does have easy free access to WorldCat, and , if WP:BEFORE had been followed, there's enough there to show the notability. search first; nominate afterwards if still necessary to remove non-notable people-=-there are certainly enough of them in Wikipedia to give full scope to anyone who wants top contribute to the necessary task of deleting inappropriate articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of this fine academic's work has crossed over into the popular world. She has an h-index of 5 or 6. No secondary sources exist that analyse her. DGG's own WorldCat shows that her books are not held be very many libraries, and what libraries do hold them are all university libraries. This all says that this is an ordinary professor, a run-of-the-mill professor, the type of professor that WP:PROF is designed to exclude. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:PROF. Having an h-index of 5 or 6 clearly shows that the author's work is not popular ... given that she is a senior professor, the h index should have been higher if her work was notable. (as a comparison, fresh PhD graduates often have H-index of 8+). The conflict of interest is particularly disturbing ... most of the edits to the article are either from the subject (from her Harvard IP or her Australian IP) or someone related to her. --Ragib (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (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. J04n(talk page) 01:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johny Sagarika

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

Biography which has been flagged for its lack of references and evidence of notability since late 2009. No evidence found that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO criteria (WP:FILMMAKER may also be relevant given his role in film production.) AllyD (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to also add that this was a contested Prod in December 2009. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find coverage to indicate that the subject passes the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 19:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2011 (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. The only information in this article (as it stands now at least) not in the target article is the unsourced comment that the 2nd volume was cancelled, which can just be added to the target article if/when a reliable source is found.Rlendog (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: Misfits

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

Procedural nomination - this page was nominated for speedy per WP:CSD#A7 while comic books aren't eligible for that. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to X-Men Misfits, which appears to be a somewhat better article about the exact same comic book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, support redirecting. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to X-Men Misfits. Kapgains (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2011 (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 that the article has been speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak as a copyright violation. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brand

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

unsure of notability (google doesn't bring up much), also possible copyright violation, and written by someone with possible WP:COI Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:14, 15 May 2011 (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. The lack of reliable third-party sources about this topic, as raised by the "delete" opinions, is a very strong argument based in policy, see WP:V#Notability. It is not addressed (or only in passing, or evaded) by the "keep" opinions, which are therefore given substantially less weight. This leads me to conclude that consensus exists to delete this article. Sandstein 17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

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

Per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, this plot-only list of fictional weapons in a specific Gundam manga series is not encyclopaedic. There don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources which cover the topic. Previous discussion closed as no consensus. Anthem of joy (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC) adding strike-out of AfD nomination by sockpuppet Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is very discriminating by covering mobile suits from one series. In fact, because of the importance of mobile suits in the overall plot of the series, having a list of mobile suits is no different having a list of characters. It also doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR because it actually doesn't give a lot of detail. The faults with this list are that it is too geared to "udder" fans and doesn't adequately describe each mobile weapons role in the overall plot. I have no doubt that some mobile weapons that only play a minor part in the plot and could be trimmed off. But those are cleanup issues and not reasons for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any secondary coverage ? I don't really understand why we should have independent lists of weapons from part of the universe. If they're really notable, they can be on List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam. --Anthem of joy (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So long as the base subject is notable, which Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny are, and it is a major plot element, then a spin out list is appropriate. Also, the general mechanical designs of the suits have been commented on in reviews of the series.[8][9][10] And finally, it would not appropriate to combine them to List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam because that list would be far too broad in scope and any organization would be haphazard because it combines fictional elements form multiple unrelated series whose only connection with each other is that they are under the Gundam brand. I've already spun off several series specific lists from this and another list, though I cannot remember its location at the time. —Farix (t | c) 13:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we have lists of Star Trek starships, then why not have this? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anthem of joy (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - In any other series, I'd say merge, but Gundam is too broad of a franchise to throw all the elements into one list. Because the Mobile Weapons ARE what the series are about, it isn't unreasonable to consider them major plot elements (or like Farix said, like characters). As long as there's coverage, the topic is presumed notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. I doubt that there are reliable source for the individual weapons to presume that they should be covered, particularly sources that provide reception, significance or real-world perspective. I do not believe that knowing the mobile weapons (even the notable ones plot-wise) is necessary to understand the plot of the series since they do not interact the way characters do and the machinery is not self-conscious in the series. Whatever is needed to understand about them is already covered in the article mobile weapons. Per the criteria of avoiding unnecessary splits, I also do not think that this is a valid article split since it doesn't meet neither the general notability criterion nor any specific notability criteria. This article is more a complete exposition of all possible details, not a summary of accepted knowledge and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world perspective. Since the content falls into what Wikipedia is not and such a list is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and not related to human knowledge, I do not think that it meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and therefore it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TheFarix listed four reliable sources. The question here is not whether the information on the page is encyclopedic, the question is whether the topic is encyclopedic and we argue that it is indeed a notable topic. Just for the record "mobile weapon" and "suit" refer to mechs; this isn't a collection of fictional guns or swords, these are serious plot elements. I agree that this article is very poor in quality. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Having reliable sources does not immediately convey notability to a topic. As stated in WP:LISTN, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables and, per WP:GNG, sources must address the subject directly in detail. The sources cited here address the series and show notability for them, not for the mobile weapons. They do not address the mobile suits in detail and merely comment on the quality of their designs in regards with the overall design of the series, nothing like the unnecessary exposition of details from a plot perspective present in the discussed list. The external links within the article are either primary sources or non-reliable and non-independent of the subject sources so they do not show notability either. And also, per WP:PLOT, Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works, something that the mobile suits by themselves do not have, so the subject of the list is non-encyclopedic and, therefore, not suitable for inclusion, which is also stated in WP:SALAT. The fictional mobile suits are already covered in sufficient detail in other Gundam-related articles and given that they do not have real-world notability by themselves, that's more than enough. Jfgslo (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an inheritance of notability argument has been made here, but even so, that isn't strictly true. There is a reason why wikipedia hasn't been able to come up with a concensus on fiction-specific notability criteria. Project consensus has generally treated such lists as spin-offs of the plot section, which is why they're generally plot heavy. A properly treated list would include a balance of real-world information as well and plenty of sources. But the quality of the article (read, the fact that it is all plot) has no relevance on a deletion discussion. What is at issue here whether or not one could reasonably contruct an article on this topic. It might be that this is better off merged into the parent article, but that is a discussion best left to the article talkpages. AfD is not the place for forcing editorial decisions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn't show how the article does not fall into WP:DEL#REASON, it merely expresses your personal opinion without pointing to specific guidelines. And while your argument may be relevant in a different discussion, this is an AfD, so you need to base your arguments in Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Jfgslo (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who claims to understand policy so well, it seems strange that you don't recognise that I've been paraphrasing policy this whole time. I don't need to spam up a bunch of links to make a solid argument here, I just need to show that the topic meets Wikipedia minimum standards for inclusion (which has been done). The burden of proof lies with those arguing for deletion, to prove that there are valid reasons for deletion according to policy. You have not done that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you've not show how this list falls into any of the categories listed at WP:DEL#REASON. —Farix (t | c) 13:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraftlos. No, you haven't. All you have done is pointing out that project consensus (I assume WikiProject manga and anime) has decided to accept some lists as part of the plot construction, which is not supported by policy or guidelines and does not prove that the article meets the criteria of WP:LISTN or WP:SALAT. That is not discussing the individual merits of this article based in polices and guidelines. You also stated that the sources that review the series are proof that the list is notable, which is why I mentioned that notability is not inherited. I quote from WP:V#Notability: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The topic here is not the Gundam SEED series but the mobile suits. The article does not provide any reliable third-party source and, per WP:BEFORE, making good-faith attempt show that such sources don't exist. Moreover, falling into What Wikipedia is not (like WP:PLOT) is also part of WP:DEL#REASON. If as you say the article should be treated as part of a plot section, that makes it a content fork, also part of WP:DEL#REASON

I'm trying to explain to you what kind of article this is and what sort of coverage is expected in this sort of article. I'm not arguing for an article with just plot, or that project consensus overrides WP:N - if you think that's what I'm saying, then I don't know what else to say here; I've been very clear here. A subject is presumed notable if it has received coverage by reliable independent sources (read: sources plural, as in two or more reliable sources). This topic has such coverage and does not meet any of the deletion criteria. However poorly written, the article topic is valid, therefore it should not be deleted. Articles should only be deleted if there's no possibility of making a viable article on that topic. Keep in mind that an article does not need to have said reliable sources in it to avoid deletion, it just has to be demonstrated that said sources exist, there is no deadline here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFarix. In which way do I not show that the list falls into WP:DEL#REASON? Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list clearly passes WP:SALAT because the inclusion criteria is not too general, too broad in scope, nor too specific. Secondly, the list also pass WP:LISTN, which is a rather recent and very controversial addition, because Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny and their mobile suits have are heavily mentioned in most coverage of the two series. The three links I provided above was just a sample. However, including Newtype USA, which I previously mentioned has several articles covering the series listed as fallows.

Konoh, Arata (November 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: A Fighting Chance". Newtype USA. 3 (11). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29.
Konoh, Arata (January 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Seeds of a New Age". Newtype USA. 4 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 18–21.
Kato, Hibekazu (April 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Peace at Last". Newtype USA. 4 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 8–15.
Staff editor (May 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED DESTINY: The War That Never Ends". Newtype USA. 4 (5). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 166. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
Staff editor (June 2005). "Gundam Trough the Years". Newtype USA. 4 (6). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 84–95. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
Konoh, Arata (December 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Driven by Impulse". Newtype USA. 4 (12). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 22–29. (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits)
Konoh, Arata (March 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Ready for Action". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29.
Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
Konoh, Arata (April 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Start of War". Newtype USA. 5 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 32–39.
Konoh, Arata (August 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Confrontation". Newtype USA. 5 (8). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 28–35.
Konoh, Arata (October 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny". Newtype USA. 5 (10). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 30–39.

And I have not finished going through 2007 and 2008 yet. —Farix (t | c) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first three links that you provided (which for notability purposes are only two since two of them are from the same publication) do not show notability for the mobile suits. As I mentioned, they are passing mentions, not significant coverage per the WP:GNG. And all these ones that you have provided above count only as one since they all are from the same author and publication. Also, sources about the series that mention the mobile suits by merely repeating the plot of the series are not proof of notability. Neither are the ones that mention a bundle package with an action figure. So, three sources do not show that the subject passes the WP:GNG. And these sources show notability for the series since that is the topic covered in detail within them, not the mobile suits. Furthermore, there is also the fact that the sources only serve to establish a presumption that the subject is suitable for inclusion. I quote from the WP:GNG: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not". Without real-world context, this subject is unsuitable because is WP:PLOT and, without any references within the article, it is still a WP:CFORK, so it falls in WP:DEL#REASON even if the sources provided showed notability. If you believe that this article passes WP:SALAT and WP:LISTN (which I don't because the subject of the list is trivial and non-encyclopedic, and it has not it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per the WP:GNG), then you should try to improve the article instead of trying to establish the notability of the subject because that is only one of several valid reason for deletion in which the article falls. Jfgslo (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles at AfD technically don't need to be improved during the brief window to survive. Like I said, it's only necessary to show that the article topic is valid and a proper article could be written on the topic. Would you please explain why the topic is inherantly unencyclopedic rather than throwing links around? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the article can be improved and I think it's quite clear that the subject of the list itself is not notable and any possible improvement to it would still leave the article as a content fork and a plot-only text, still being inappropriate material for Wikipedia. As all the text is unreferenced, there is no usable content either, so there is no reason to keep it around. It is inherently non-encyclopedic because: no reliable third-party sources address the topic as a group or set, only primary sources or fan pages; it is a redundant derivative based exclusively on fictional elements of two notable works and has no significance or relevance as a stand-alone article; it is trivial because it only adds extra details to the plot of the series, indiscriminately adding information instead of being a concise plot summary; and the subject lacks reception or significance in the real-world by itself. I'm sure that if this were a Gundam fan-encyclopedia it would be appropriate material, but not in Wikipedia where fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. Jfgslo (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable third party sources independent of the subject, as per WP:V and WP:N. Moreover, this is a plot-only or plot-mainly description of a fictional work with no real information about significance or reception, which violates WP:JUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the article is not what is the issue. Its the notability of the topic. TheFarix has shown four sources that give some time to the topic. No one is arguing that article doesn't need to be improved. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability and WP:MOSFICT that leads up to it. Right now the article is fully in it's own Mobile Suit Gundam SEED world, and notability is not WP:INHERITED here in the real world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD evaluates the article topic, not is current contents. No one is arguing that such a high level of inuniverse plot summary is apropriate, no one is arguing that this topic inherits notability from the parent article, just that a spin-out article is a standard practice across most fiction articles. TheFarix has provided four sources that would satisfy the GNG, MOSFICT isn't relevant here.--Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy your argument that four vague mentions in reviews on anime websites counts as significant coverage in reliable sources. If the majority of this information in the article was reproduced in independent reliable sources, then perhaps I would support keeping it. Anthem of joy (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that both the series and its mobile suits were covered in several issues of Newtype USA, but I'll have to look back to see the extent of that coverage. However, there are no "ratios" about how much of an article's or list's is sourced to primary sources vs those by third-party sources. The three sources I gave above are "independent reliable sources", but apparently, you are dismissing them do to your lack of familiarity with the topic in general. —Farix (t | c) 13:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources include appropriate scholarship, and coverage in mainstream news organisations. If a topic has received no attention in scholarship and there are no secondary sources which have the same academic integrity as scholarship, the topic is not encyclopaedic. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources include any publish source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. At no point are reliable sources limited to just "scholarly" or "mainstream" sources because both terms are highly subjective and leads to bias that allows editors to reject reliable sources that they either don't like or counter their arguement. —Farix (t | c) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding content forking. Per WP:SPINOFF:
"Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter."
Therefore, because this is a spin-out of the parent article - notability can be justified through sources related to the parent topic. We don't have to provide sources that that is *only* about mobile suits and nothing else. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:SPINOUT explicitly states that the spin-out's topic has to pass WP:GNG or a subject specific notability guideline independently. --Anthem of joy (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Had the wrong link up, but I don't see what you're saying in either guideline. However, it has been shown that this topic does pass the GNG. Please note that in English coverage of Anime, ANN and NewtypeUSA are about as mainstream as you can get. If both those sources have covered the topic, this should be the end of the discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a how to. If you want to see the policy on when to spinout or not, see WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SO we split out content that isn't sourced? Might as well Delete. If you want to expand on it until it is notable, be my guess, but if this does end up being deleted, you have allt he time to make a special page for it.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agway

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable corporation/brand. News report showing a bankruptcy filing, other incidental mentions. Languished with a speedy tag for 36+ hours. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we all know, we aren't !voting on the condition of the article at any time, but whether there are sources available to write a full article. There are more than 20 incoming links from other articles and 16K articles in GNews on the business entity under the Agway name, there are also plenty of articles on the pre-merger business names. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major airlines and Chrysler Corporation have filed for bankruptcy in the past. Bankruptcy does not make a firm non-notable. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17186111.html can provide one good reference as an example of the size of Agway's business, a four year multi-million dollar (1995 dollar value) contract for IT services. Agway is definitely notable. Doc2234 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are good reliable sources that satisfy WP:SIGCOV, I will be happy to withdraw. Your example, however, is a press release, which doesn't qualify. And I wasn't using "bankruptcy" as a reason for not being notable, I was saying that it was one of the primary sources found, which alone is not a valid source to prove notability. My job isn't to prove it isn't notable anyway, as you can't prove a negative. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the highbeam list of articles would be the Buffalo newspaper article, not the PR News article. I can see where that isn't clear. Doc2234 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is an agricultural business that offers feed for livestock and poultry, as well as seed, fertilizers, and herbicides. I am not sure that all of the GNews hits are about the same business; some suggested that they were running a grocery store, others were selling pavement sealants, and it may be that other businesses are using this term as their trademark. I also didn't see anything that suggested that this business had significant effects on history, culture, or technology in the first several pages I read. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the Bankruptcy (AP), a chemical plant they built (WSJ), coverage of their supply chain model in a book, and some possible paywalled merger coverage I think WP:CORP has been satisfied. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Associated Press article cited in the footnotes indicates that the company lost nearly $100 million in a single fiscal year. This is, in short, a BIG company going through a newsworthy bankruptcy. The fact that it is a cooperative venture adds to potential pool of interested readers. Adequate sourcing available to constitute "notability" in Wikipedia terms. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Smerdis of Tlön" has a point: many of those articles in GNews are for "Agway Petroleum". Either that's a different company, or the article has got the company description wrong. Perchloric (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AP story that I linked to above lists a couple Agway Energy businesses as subsidiaries of Agway International, so I would lean toward the latter explanation. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm prepared to believe that an article of this name deserves to exist on Wikipedia. And at least the current stub isn't corporate spam. But as Smerdis says it really ought to include mention of some significant impact of this company to establish its notability.Perchloric (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly a notable brand. The sources are sufficient to show it. If the article needs to be clarified, this is done by fixing it, not deleting it. " significant effects on history, culture, or technology " is not the Wikipedia criterion for inclusion. And it is certainly the job of those wanting deletion to show failure of notability. We do not delete content without evidence. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG appears to not understand WP:N. Failure to provide evidence of notability is exactly the reason for deleting an article. Just read the first paragraph of WP:N. Perchloric (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph reads: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." As DGG points out "significant effects on history, culture, or technology" does not appear anywhere in WP:Notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That part's fine. The part that appears to contradict WP:N is his statement "it is certainly the job of those wanting deletion to show failure of notability. We do not delete content without evidence." Failure of notability is an absence of evidence of notability. It is the job of those wishing to keep the article to produce evidence of notability. This is just a special case of the general rule that all statements in a WP article must be verifiably sourced. This includes those that demonstrate notability of the subject. Perchloric (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To further your observation, you can't prove something is not notable: you can't prove a negative. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactamente. Perchloric (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can demonstrate a negative , at least to a very high degree of probability. A formal logical proof is not necessary. Certainly it is possible to show non-notability. One can systematically examine all sources, and find that all the available mentions are only mentions, or indicate a lack of importance. one can determine that some article does not meet any of the special criteria. One can systematically try to find sources, and show that nothing at all can be found. When I comment at afd , I say to delete for lack of notability quite often. But if the evidence indicates its an important company, I do not say that. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. As you say, you need evidence to indicate notability. Failure to find such evidence indicates non-notability. It is the job of those arguing against deletion to provide the evidence. Perchloric (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2011 (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 The Hub (TV channel). (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HubBub

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

Not notable, unsourced, smacks of advertising. Has been tagged for speedy for 37 hours with no action.... Dennis Brown (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hub (TV channel). This article doesn't include anything that isn't already mentioned in the parent article, so deletion wouldn't be much of a loss. While specific programming blocks can be notable, ie Adult Swim, it doesn't look to me like this has gotten much attention. (although since it's a common term it is difficult to research) Qrsdogg (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK As nom, I could live with that, so if someone *did* search for that term, they would end up in the right place, and would eliminate the issues with the non-notable block itself. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The later stuarts

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

Previously speedily deleted by me for being redundant to existing articles (House of Stuart and articles about individual monarchs). This was chalenged by the article's creator, so I am bringing it to a full debate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems entirely redundant of existing pages. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and think about a redirect to House of Stuart if necessary. I seem to recall a textbook I used years ago at school with this title, but we've got the subject matter covered fine. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (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 Bloodstock. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Raymond Gregory

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG only trivial coverage [11] and [12] CTJF83 11:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bloodstock. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bloodstock as per Carrite Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP of a non-notable person, created by a mate of his. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bloodstock; there' isn't anything to back an article, source-wise, but the redirect is a plausible target. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:42, 20 May 2011 (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 . - filelake shoe 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television shows

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

This page violates Wikipedia is not a directory, as it is a list of generally non-notable plot elements ~~where the linking concept Fictional television shows is not notable~~. Due to the lack of secondary sources covering most of the fictional shows, much of this page constitutes original research. Previous AFD (a year ago) resulted in no consensus either way. Anthem of joy (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Observer source establishes the notability of the topic and I have just added another good one. The ease with which one can find good sourced content for this indicates that the topic has not yet been given good attention. It didn't even mention Jack Benny, who appears in numerous sources when one looks for material about the show-within-a-show format. Our editing policy is to keep weak and neglected articles in mainspace so that they may be further developed. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will support keeping this if you can produce evidence that good sources exist for the vast majority of these shows. As far as I can see, there are one or two notable ones, and plenty which have received no more attention in reliable third party sources than a single sentence. The Observer article is perhaps a good source if one was to write an article about Fictional television shows, but it can't be used to justify the whole list. --Anthem of joy (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation This is a difficult call. I can see why the list would be interesting, informative, and all the other wrong reasons to keep. It is narrowly defined, and the concept seems to be notable enough. The current article is a nightmare, and it would seem that if you can't source EACH entry, they shouldn't be there, which would make it virtually a blank page and no longer interesting or useful. As it is, there is no way for the article to exist unless it is original research. There are lots of reasons why the article is a bad idea, although they are more of an issue of editing, not criteria. In short, I'm stuck between deleting an article that I think is notable by subject matter, keeping an article that will have to be almost blank to pass guidelines, or keep an article that is useful but fails every guideline on Wikipedia. A bitter pill. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After chewing on the idea for a day, I have to say Keep for the reasons I listed. The current article is riddled with flaws, but the concept itself is notable and valid. All My Circuits is one of my favorite examples, but there are many others that demonstrate that fictional TV shows can take on a life of their own, and become characters in themselves. A list of them (although very different than the current mess) seems appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, at best we have what should be a brief article about the concept, with a few sourced examples. In any case, the current list is garbage. I'm still looking, but I don't expect much. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim as desired. The sources in the article establish notability of the concept, and once that's been satisfied, notability of individual entries does not matter per WP:NNC, such that a primary source for each will adequately meet WP:V. Having said that, there really ought to be a better way to organize all of this. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting WP:NNC. All NNC means is that the List of fictional ducks does not have to be reproduced entirely in another source to suitable, as long as the overall concept of fictional ducks is notable. It's no excuse for having a list where 90% of the entries are non-notable, which is one of the main problems of this list. If we trimmed it to the notable shows within shows, it would simply better to have an article on Fictional television shows. Per WP:NOTDIR, we don't have listings of non-notable things where the overriding concept is notable. Imagine the List of British Muslims under your criteria. Islam in the United Kingdom is a notable topic, but that doesn't mean that we need a list of every person who can be verified to practise it. --Anthem of joy (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , including every fictional show that has a non-trivial role in notable fiction. Probably the article needs expansion, rather than trimming. The individual fictional shows need only be significant within the fiction, not independently notable. This is the standard criterion for fictional elements included in a list like this. They need not be sufficiently notable as independent fictional elements---that might be needed perhaps to justify an independent article on each fictional show, but every item of content in a Wikipedia list need not as a general rule be notable--that's the criterion for articles, not individual pieces of article content. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because it is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and not related to human knowledge. The very few references provided within the article do not constitute significant coverage, so the list does not meet the general notability guideline. Merely existing does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There appears to be no criteria for inclusion in the list itself, which lists obscure non-notable fictional television shows with ones that show some notability and that makes it fail the criteria of notability for stand-alone list. There are no sources that show that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This situation makes the list a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. If individual fictional shows are notable on their own, they should have their own article, not serve as an excuse for a list of non-notable fictional TV shows. Jfgslo (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (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 Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camps and bases of the Singapore Armed Forces

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

Contested PROD. Article was previously also tagged {{unreferenced}} but the tag was removed together with the PROD tag.

Table is unverifiable and unsourced. WP:NOTDIRECTORY: Wikipedia is not a directory of information. This is not an encyclopaedic list, but an indiscriminate one that serves no purpose other than a directory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "indiscriminate" about this list than any other list, then, say List of army barracks around Aldershot. Given the nature of the list and the way the Singapore military threats such information, there are little verifiable sources on the internet for "classified information", even thou thousands of Singaporeans who walked through these bases will have known that the Commandos are based in Hendon Camp, for example. If the issue of verifiability is to do with the lists of units rather than the list of establishments, then I am sure the proposer can improve that on his own without flagging the entire list for deletion.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep an article. Indeed, the article you cite is about as indiscriminate as the nominated one. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, encyclopedic and discriminate list which does not serve as a directory. Eleven of the entries have their own article, which serves to show that such a list is notable. I would presume some of the camps and bases are notable themselves, and thus this list is an excellent way of yet presenting the basic amount of information about them in an encyclopedic way. It seems that the nominator has misunderstood WP:NOTDIRECTORY completely, this sort of list is not mentioned in any way in any of the subpoints; quite the contrary, the list portrays a collection of encyclopedic information. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire list is unsourced. Have we been reduced to accepting unsourced lists just because items on them are blue linked and notable themselves? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on sourcing it right now. Do you want to help? Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, it might not be a great idea for me to get involved given the SAF pay my wages. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. Military bases are notable, and we have lists of them for many countries. The article needs references, but it should be possible to verify most, if not all, of its contents and the remainder can then be removed. Based on what I know about the Singapore Armed Forces, the content generally looks OK. Given that the article has a clearly defined scope (facilities of the Singapore Armed Forces) I don't see how it could possibly be considered 'indiscriminate'. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is not indiscriminate - it has clear inclusion criteria, lists things which have a strong connection (all military bases in a certain area) and is probably complete or near-complete. It does not meet any of the things in WP:NOTDIR, as it is not a collection of loosely related information, genealogical entries, contact details, a list of events or insignificant items relating to a company or business, a sales catalogue, release notes, an unencyclopedic cross categorisation or a list of all possible details about the subject. It is not the case that every possible list of a certain type of object or place in a certain area counts as a directory. "Unsourced" is not a reason for deletion. "Unverifiable" is, however I find it very hard to believe that there are no sources concerning the bases of units of the Singaporean armed forces. Hut 8.5 11:53, 15 May 2011 (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. Sandstein 05:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow University for the Humanities

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

Unsourced. Artem Karimov (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - accredited institution with 10,000 students and associations with notable academics. The article needs some third-party sources, but I'd be extremely surprised if there weren't appropriate Russian sources around. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 06:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsourced is not a valid reason to delete something. The primary source is not in doubt for the information. Notability is determined by common sense. The official website states: The University features six faculties with a total number of more than 10,000 students. Common sense is that if they have more than 10,000 students, than the university is notable. Dream Focus 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Degree-granting institution in Moscow for six decades. As near as I can tell by our standard practice regarding such matters, IT EXISTS, therefore it is in. This is yet another in a series of AfD challenges that made by editors who are apparently not cognizant of STUFF TO CONSIDER BEFORE LAUNCHING AN AfD NOMINATION. Tag it for sources if there are none; as long as it is not a Biography of a LIving Person, which this is not, there is no sense in rushing an article like this off to the abattoir. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid grounds for nomination. I note that the nominator is based in Moscow so presumably he knows the institution which makes the nomination puzzling. TerriersFan (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably yes, actually no. This university is unknown to the general public. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a relevant standard. Most of wikipedia is content unknown to the general public, but knowable through sources.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Artem, does it exist? I believe it does from some quick looking. If it exists, it merits an article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Artem's primary problem is that he thinks the article has too much puffery, which it probably does. but that's not a reason to delete. It seems to be a lesser-known university, and though it traces its history back to 1944, really did not become a university until around 1992. (p.s. -artem, you gotta tell me what THIS is [13]!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In-house\Fan\Bollywood\whatever video production does not necesserily qualify as a reliable source. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would emphatically say its not a reliable source. I do see students standing around the campus and such, and apparently bad mouthing it. There's no question about whether the university exist, I've added sourcing that proves it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that it does not exist. What I said was that the university is unknown to general public. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot see any reason for deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: the vast bulk of the article turned out to be WP:COPYVIO of the topic's own website (and has been since its creation). WP:ITEXISTS is a poor reason for retention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All copyright violations are gone now. And it exist as a major university is a very good reason for retention. Dream Focus 10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what remains is an unsourced stub that fails to establish notability. I would note that you blindly !voted to keep this BLATANT WP:COPYVIO, whose WP:ADVERT tone should have given you a clue as to its origin. Why then should we accept your equally-blind claim that it's "a major university", lacking any substantiation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously its official website is the source of the information, I adding in references to show that, although that should be common sense. They have 10,000 students at a time, then yes, its a major university. Dream Focus 11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And equally obviously, this material is (i) in violation of WP:SELFPUB "the article is not based primarily on such sources", and does not add ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proves its notability is the fact that it is an educational facility with a large number of students. By rule of common sense, that's all that is needed. Dream Focus 11:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it could just as easily be a diploma mill with little or nothing more than its website. What you term "common sense" I term a continuation of the gullibility you have already exhibited over this article. This sort of issue is why Wikipedia demands third party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a de facto rule that every verifiable high school may have an independent article. The idea that a verifiable university would be deleted is unthinkable in the annals of wikipedia. I have found discussion in russian news articles that verify the existence of the institution. A few deal with a homicide that occurred there a few years ago so I chose not to cite it. There's no basis to claim that its a diploma mill.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a de jure rule: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V) Hence my demand for third-party sourcing. And I did not claim that the university was a diploma mill -- merely that Dream Focus' "~~common sense~~" naive acceptance of the website at face value had not ruled out the possibility. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you will learn to use Google someday to help improve articles, padawan.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I identified the WP:COPVIO that you an your fellow ARS buddies all missed, grasshopper? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol. but you must use your powers for good, for good. i shall now add "third-party sourcing", though not in response to your "demand".--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: removing WP:COPYVIO≠"for good" in ARS lexicon. Good to know for the future. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

keep all verifiable universities are notable, and their web sites are reliable for the routine facts about them. Millicent has added external sources, which anyone could of course have added earlier--including Hrafn. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 22 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in the Falkland Islands

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

I'm assuming this was created because the standard template gives a redlink for every spot on earth. I do not think that this is a notable topic; it says less than 0.1% of the population practices Islam. My guess would be it's actually less than 0.01%. There shouldn't be a separate article on every political entity just because one Muslim family happens to reside there. This makes about as much sense as Navajos in Germany or Navajos in South Korea which I could easily pull out of my rear due to the U.S. military presence there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - population of the Falkland Islands is 3,140, according to the CIA - [14]. Therefore there are about 3 Muslims living in the Falkland Islands... --Anthem of joy (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were called Rockhopper Penguins on the Falkland Islands I would go for it. But this article is pointless, unjustifiable, and unreferenceable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if one of the purposes of WP is to be a statistical atlas. The information that there are so few Muslims in the Falkland Islands is useful information, even if not very surprising. BTW please check out Islam in Cuba. Quite interesting (even shocking), and not talked about much.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of Wikipedia's (many) purposes is "to be a statistical atlas". Where on earth did you get the idea that it was? – iridescent 21:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large number of articles on small towns, airports, bus routes, etc. gave me the impression.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant content or evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ddima/talk 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would suggest that this information be merged into the religion section of the Falkland Islanders article. This article could then be deleted or redirected. Mrmatiko (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Falkland Islanders per Gene93k. If the Muslim population was a significant part of the Falkand's community, then an article would make sense. But 3 people? We don't need an article for every single tiny stat.--Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Falkland Islanders. There is nothing unreasonable about having a redirect with this title. — C M B J 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even warrant a merge. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is statistical data regarding the religious makeup of the Falkland Islands, it needs to be added to the Falkland Islands. With a small population, such as this one, it should be trivial to add a section to that article. This might, might, be worth a redirect if that ends up happening, but only because this title is linked from templates elsewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you're right Mrmatiko - Falkland Islanders is the correct target. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:52, 20 May 2011 (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 University of San Agustin. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Augustinian Mirror

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

This is a University student magazine published twice a year. There are no refs establishing notability. An interested party asked for it to be listed at Afd to help prevent the corporation that publishes it from being deleted, that discussion is ongoing. You can find it here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA Publications Szzuk (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of San Agustin. No notability independent of the university, but potentially a worthwhile element of the university article. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Same as nom, and I also agree with Orlady, the topic of the article under discussion would be of more interest to the University of San Agustin than to the general readership. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Per above. This can be included into the "student life" or "media" section of USA. Moray An Par (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2011 (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special Control Service

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

No real evidence for the existence of this organization

The article was created (and most of it written) from a guy called Dimitri Khalezov. Khalezov is a conspiracy theorist and sells a book about the destruction of the WTC with nuclear bombs. He says he was a officer in this soviet military organization. I suppose he created the article so that people find some evidence that this organization he talks about really exist. I don't find any other evidence of this organization anywhere. I looks all made up. Even the link that are added to the page lead to non-loading pages or to nonsense sites. This fraud shouldn't be in the wikipedia so I suggest deletion. Isley Constantine (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The nomiator is incorrect. Whatever Khalezov's fringe claims, the organisation exists and is the counterpart of several US DoD organisations that do the same thing (principally, I believe, the Air Force Technical Applications Center). It is listed in Scott and Scott's Russian Military Directory which I'm quite happy to e-mail anybody who has any doubts. Try Scott and Scott's The Armed Forces of the Soviet Union or Federation of American Scientists for further data on the SCS. A similar Russian writer who wrote authoritatively about the organisation he knows but also esposes fringe theories is 'Viktor Suvorov', aka Vladimir Rezun. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

additionally independent evidence also at http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/46325-commemorative-medal-50-years-of-the-special-control-service/ Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provide leads to a page where someone searches for the evidence of the organization "Special Control Service", because he has a picture of a medal of that organization (which might be photoshopped). So this is no evidence. It further undermines my believe that this organization is made up by Khalezov. If this is really a government organization there should be an official document or webpage on a russian gov. web site. It is apparently (when it does really exist) not that secret that this shouldn't be the case. All other webpages I encountered so far are copies and extracts from this wikipedia article. Your book sources could also be made up or based on this fake wikipedia article. Isley Constantine (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, please. First look up Harriet Fast Scott and X X SCott. Then look up their histories as chronilcers of the Soviet military for the US government for decades. Check around if you like for initial details Armed Forces of the Soviet Union, produced painstakingly by use of the Soviet open source press during the Cold War. Then I will take the liberty of requesting you to email me your e-mail address via the emailthisuser function so I can send you the document I'm talking about. This service was real in 2002 and 2004 and in all certainty probably still exists. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the book "The Armed Forces of the Soviet Union" you mention but the (more actual?) book book "Russian Military Directory" I cannot find. I tried google, amazon and "Westminster Press" (publisher of the older book). Do you have an ISBN for this book? (or any other data on where I could find it) Otherwise I still have to assume that this organization may have existed but was confined to the time where the Soviet Union exited. Isley Constantine (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RMD appears to be a post-retirement version of an internal U.S. government document which I obtained from a former U.S. army Soviet specialist. It is not a 'book'; it's effectively a list of officers & postings for the Russian military, which Scott and Scott continued to do post retirement. When you allow me to send you a copy, you will see the Russian media sources used; things like Krasnaya Zvezda and the other military media publications which listed officers' names, ranks, and posts. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this list is your evidence? How actual is this list? Can the contents of the list be verified from a different souce? Regardless of the credibility of this document, please send a copy to me via email via the function you mentioned. I've set up a link on my user page for this. Isley Constantine (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see also http://www.arsenalrus.com/contents.php?id=8#6_3
Comment. Existence is confirmed by the Google Scholar search linked above, which finds mentions in these articles in academic journals. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "Special Control Service" mentioned. There is only a "Special monitoring service". So it doesn't seem to be the same. Isley Constantine (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that different translators might translate the same Russian word slightly different ways? For example, отдельная can be translated by different military translators as 'independent,' 'separate,' or 'detached,' the last of which may be closest to the literal meaning. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no _official_ russian government translation in english for this organization? Isn't that strange? So why is this article called "Special Control Service" when "Special Monitoring Service" might also be correct? Isley Constantine (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isley, what you appear not to realise is that the Soviet/Russian government is near-obsessive about military secrecy. This is a highly sensitive military function, which makes the whole matter more murky. They are not like the US government and create extensive webpages for each service, branch, and unit. It was a near-revolutionary step when current reformist defence minister Serduyov declassified all documents relating to World War II - and this was done within the last five years! They also do not necessarily care what any organisation's translation into English would be. Why would they? The way some inside the military establishment see it, they are the heirs to an organisation which won the 'Great Patriotic War' and that is quite enough. There masy be no official position on what the name of this highly sensitive organisation is in English - though note Scott and Scott also refer to it as the 'Special Control Service' - and thus people less familiar with the way Soviet military terminology is translated into English by those who work professionally on these matters may use a non-standard translation. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I see your point. And we shouldn't only rely on "official" documents, web pages or whatever. When this would be the case, many WP articles wouldn't be possible. But at least we should have some basic facts/evidence to back the claim that there is (or was) actually an organization called "Special Control Service". I'll have a look at the documents you are sending me. Maybe if this article stays this list should be added to the references? Isley Constantine (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott and Scott's transliteration of the Russian title is 'Sluzhby spetsialnogo kontrolya MO (SSK)'. MO is the Russian acronym for Ministry of Defence. Check on page 78 of the 2004 edition, when you receive it. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the PDF you sent me, thanks. I really have difficulties to accept this document as some sort of evidence. The stuff written there might be true or might not be true. And who can proof that this document is really from Harriet/William F. Scott? It seems to be the only source. It's a bit like the Koran. "This book is from god", "Who says that?", "This book says that.". Maybe there are other sources? And why isn't this document not in a reference section on the article (yes I could do that, but I still prefer a deletion ;-) )? -- Isley Constantine (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try checking the references listed! Each officer has a newspaper article and date attached to his name - it's all there - every one can be run down. Tell me, how many translated newspaper artcicles did you read in there? Did you try checking for some of the original Russian versions of some of those articles on the web? As Phil has already said, Google Scholar confirms it with other documentation. Why is it not in the references? Because it wasn't used! It's *independent* evidence ! I have to say, Islay, that your continued pursuit of this deldebate begins to appear frivolous. How many sources have to be provided to you?Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, run a google search for Службы специального контроля. You'll get multiple independent results that together provide an adequate standard for the organisation's existence, plus there's Ru-wiki as well. Look at ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Служба Специального Контроля ; OK, it has no references, but do you think Russian wikipedians would have created an entire article about an organisation that didn't exist ? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on the word "scholar" in the nomination and you will see from the snippets shown that both of those articles refer to the Special Control Service. Why do so many people talk past each other in deletion discussions without even looking at the automatically-generated search links that provide evidence to inform the discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (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 08:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I had a look around on Google. There are some mentions of this service as "Special Control Service". But am having a hard time finding a reference that I would feel confident about using as a formal reference. Will change recommendation if better references are listed in the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I still have trouble with the "evidence" yet. There is some PDF floating arround which mentions this organization but the origin of the PDF is hard to verify (at least for me). Also I don't find any other useful information. No direct google search results come up. And Google Scholar list some articles but on the preview there is no direct mention of the organization either. Most search results are only copies of this article from wikipedia. Furthermore there is still Khalezov and his book and his conspiracy theory and the fact that some with his username started this article. One would expect for an organization this old and this big there would be more information in available (also in english). Isley Constantine (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whie the Google Scholar hits appear to confirm that the organisation did indeed exist, I can't find anything to suggest that it meets WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Leaves and a Bud

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

None of the articles cited give a significant coverage of the Subject. There is not even a review of this subject as a saving grace. While the author himself is notable, having an independent page for this book is unnecessary as we would have done away with a snippet in the author page. Please refer WP:Books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wading through the miasma (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reference #4 clearly covers this works explicitely, I don't think I know a whay how to make the article more notable. Besides, documentation on Indian artists is not always as good as European or American ones, so we may be missing alot because we don't have ready access to local language stuffs, Sadads (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable work from a notable author. There is enough scholarly coverage like this to warrant a separate article--Sodabottle (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EuroVoice

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

I tried to fix this, but to me it seems that this contest fails notability guidelines, is written as an advertisement, is largely unsourced, in bad English, with peacockery and on top of that is partly a copyvio from: http://eurovoice.tv/about/ noclador (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at this, it seems the event was attended by at least hundreds, and was hosted by Pamela Anderson. Plus it has a neat little website too. I think the lack of sources is down to lack of English media coverage. It's poorly written, and any copyvio should be removed, advertising language should be edited out, but it shouldn't be deleted. - Yk³ talk · contrib 07:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep though needs to be rewritten. Copyvio needs to go of course. I watched EuroVoice as did millions others, it wasn't very good but it's certainly notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The show returns this year and they're already accepting entries. --Tris2000 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (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. WP:CSD#G4 - altered his name since WP:Articles for deletion/Avinash Patra but it's the same prolific socker. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abinash Patra, Sr. I

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Claim to notability is the award British Author of the year in 2010; however, I cannot find any direct references to the award and the individual winning the award. (i.e., there does not seem to be any British government references to the award). The other claim to notability is being invited to the Royal Wedding. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give Me a Break/Stars and Bars

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

I don't see much notability for this song, and I can't find any sources. It might make sense to redirect to Mikael Bolyos. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how this passes the criteria for songs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Song fails WP:NSONGS since it failed to chart and the article has zero reliable sources. Since the band does not have an article, it should be deleted instead of a redirect to one of the artist in the band. Aspects (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Chinese Nationalists

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability of the topic is disputable: article claims that the subject is a "political party" formed via an online internet forum. Recreation of a previously deleted article, refer to earlier AfD. Google search gives no related hits apart from Wikipedia and self-published sites such as Facebook, Youtube, Stormfront.org, Groupsite, MeFeedia, etc. (Unrelated google hits include information on the (unrelated) Chinese Nationalists during WW2.) "Official website" is a one-page website with very little detail and a few gmail emails, and appears to be registered in Bellevue, Washington. The logo of the organization is uploaded onto Commons by a user claiming a license of "Public Domain, self created", suggesting the possibility of WP:COI, direct or indirect. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I support the lowest of all possible notability bars for political parties and their youth sections, regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of material that NEEDS to be in an encyclopedia, not shunted aside due to sourcing deficiencies. Political parties should be treated exactly the way we treat insect species, villages, high schools, pro athletes, and so forth — if it exists, it should be in. Unfortunately, this remains a minority view and solid content continues to be annihilated for failure to comply with imperfect and ill-fitting guidelines of "notability." Unfortunately also, people find it much easier to get worked up over the potential loss of pages dedicated to TV plots, child actors, and professional athletes, than they do about tiny political parties. I'll keep saying my piece, we're really screwing up on this. IGNORE ALL RULES (use common sense) used to be a fundamental "pillar" of Wikipedia. Unthinking adherence to so-called "notability guidelines" is the new norm... Unfortunately. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, group is notable in the sense of having provoked the government of the world's most populous country to pronounce itself about it. --Soman (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2011 (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. Author requested speedy delete. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 05:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zayaan Zahir

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

Looks to be self promotion, as the creator of the article is very similar to the article's name. As well this soccer player is not notable at all. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:03, 15 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence of the Clamps

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

Horrible, unreliable sources. http://theinfosphere.org and Twitter pics are far from reliable, delete/redirect article til better sources are found CTJF83 17:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both (a YouTube video with material from) the Futurama volume 5 DVD and Vulture from New York Magazine are referenced in the article. Did you overlook those, or are those horrible sources, too? Besides, I found that the Internet Movie Database states the original air date as June 23rd, not July 21st[15]. Wouldn't it be a little extreme to delete a complete article when only part of it uses horrible sources? I think it "just" needs a rewrite. Laricaney (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously say this is a reliable source?! Also IMDB is user edited, so not reliable, so we are down to one reliable source, NY Magazine. I tried redirecting several times, but the user kept reverting me, and refused to discuss it, so here we are. CTJF83 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's from the official DVD. I didn't know IMDB was user edited, but since NY Magazine also confirms the air date: " Vulture hears the second half of a previously ordered batch of 26 episodes ... is currently set to premiere June 23 on the network." However, it doesn't tell which episode will air first, so maybe you're right after all. Laricaney (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, guess I didn't realize it was from the DVD. However, that clip only references "A preview clip of the episode appears as a bonus feature on the Futurama volume 5 DVD as an "Exclusive Season 7 Sneak Peek"", which doesn't add much to the scheme of the page. So it comes down to nothing really sourced, because not sure how who ever wrote this, decided that this said Silence of the Clamps was the season premiere episode. So, we are back to nothing to sustain an article. CTJF83 17:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's better to delete it. Laricaney (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a clear delete, not a relist. Andrevan@ 06:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors do not consensus make - with so little participation, a relist makes sense. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and several other unsourced Futurama stubs in Category:Upcoming television episodes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ctjf83. The sourcing just isn't there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:13, 20 May 2011 (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. NW (Talk) 16:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Legoux Moving Average

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

I can't find any reliable sources; not notable. Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be mostly a copy of http://www.arnaudlegoux.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ALMA-Arnaud-Legoux-Moving-Average.pdf which has a copyright notice on it. Even if we sort out the copyright I would then agree with Dicklyon that it is currently non-notable. It's always possible that it may catch on with stock-watchers, so it might become notable. From a signal-processing point of view it's not particularly interesting. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2011 (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. A7 – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 05:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Zahaan Zahir

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

Looks to be self promotion, as the creator of the article is very similar to the article's name. As well this soccer player is not notable at all. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:54, 15 May 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Liu

AfDs for this article:

Rex Liu – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable musician. The references that were in the article (I removed them step by step, after evaluation, with summaries that hopefully explain my motivation well enough) were not notable and did not verify. I cannot find anything else that is reliable and about this person. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't know there this was the second AfD--the first one closed as delete. Apparently, this version is the recreation of a recreation. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per C4. If not, delete. Non-notable (I cannot check the difference between this one and the previous version; no mop to reach for the light switch) Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't identical to the previous version, but contains no more claim to notability. It's the same person, who doesn't seem to have done much more. (I'm not belittling the playing of the bassoon - but there are a lot of bassoonists in the world.) Peridon (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never met one. Are they closeted? Guitar players are a dime a dozen... Drmies (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USFL All-Time Team

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

Non notable list. Seems to have been voted on by visitors to a web site that no longer exists. I can find no coverage in the media. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This all-star team does not seem to have been sponsored by the league itself or by any major media, just by a personal web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its from a geocities website... jorgenev 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server. (Wish someone had real references for it though... kind of cool...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my thoughts exactly, I was one of the eight or ten fans of the league.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable poll -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Crossing

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. I dug around in Highbeam Research for sources in an attempt to beef up this article, and while "Montrose Crossing" garners 31 results, all of them are trivial mentions - the shopping center is mentioned in passing where something else more notable is occurring, or a business in the center has something notable going on, etc. I found no significant coverage of the shopping center itself. Likewise, Google doesn't turn up anything significant - just more trivial mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't write a decent article if the only facts that can be established via reliable sources are trivia. Chester Markel (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If only it were even that much. I wasn't even able to dig up some trivia-type facts about the shopping center. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2011 (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Day Everything Became Nothing

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

tagged for reference improvement and notability 3 years ago. don't see this one meeting WP:BAND. gnews [16] merely confirms it has played a few events, no indepth coverage. does not contain more than 1 notable member either. nor has it produced notable albums. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 15:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG since it is not signed to a significant record label and has zero reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lê Tấn Lộc

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

This article clearly fails WP:BIO. This journalist is only a tourist guide and writer for some small newspapers in Vietnam; he is not famous for anything at all so that Vietnamese Wikipedia has deleted this article. He also may be the one who wrote this article. --Abeille ouvrière (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't speak Vietnamese, but I can't see any immediate evidence of his notability either through Google. --Anthem of joy (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Anthem of Joy, I can't read Vietnamese either. Delete ~~as all references cited are in Vietnamese~~ as fails WP:BIO. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is very famous in Vietnam with the keyword (his full name) saved on Google (By Lê Tấn Lộc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.19.5.211 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The afd1 tag was never added to the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources provided here are Vietnamese-language articles that the subject wrote, not articles that are about him. The claims to notability in this article are too vague to be verified -- such as "He was known since he won the awards that help him buy a house in a big city." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (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 Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University. Sandstein 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smvdu B.arch

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

"Smvdu B.arch" apparently stands for "Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Bachelor of Architecture". The current version of the article is little more than a listing of the first batch of students and a linkfarm of wikilinks to architectural topics, and it is deletable on that basis alone. However, one must also look at what the article could be, and that isn't much better -- individual schools within universities are rarely independently notable enough for their own article, and this is no exception, being a 4 year old department with little outside press. ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University. This article makes no assertion of notability for the School of Architecture other than that notability perhaps inherited from the parent school. --Lyncs (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to School of Architecture and Landscape Design. This article is about the Only College in the Whole of Jammu and Kashmir state in India and in the Disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact there are talks in the Chancellors office to Upgrade this Institution to a status of Full fledged College as it is about to get its First Master's degree batch. I Agree that it need a lots of Improvement and within a month It will be in the best form possible. Its a request to keep this page in its construction mode till May 31 2011. And if it still doesn't come till its standard, do merge it with Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University. With regards --Tall.kanna (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the only College I mean the only architecture college in Jammu and Kashmir. And I have a request to keep this discussion on till May 31 2011 as the Editors of this article have their Major Examination till May 24 2011, including me.[Major Exam Date Sheet]--Tall.kanna (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have started the article, the first point what i saw was about the historical reference , we know that anything stands correct with logic and history , moreover we must know about the basics of any college or establishment. but, the historical reference seems to be null when we write about the establishment of a new thing. many errors might be there inside this article , which i expect many people are trying to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm.madhav (talk • contribs) 15:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge per Lyncs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)`[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as we always do for material of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 22 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Imeson

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

Not suitable for inclusion per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERP. This material was more suited for Wikinews and the event and perp, while perhaps a spike for "breaking news" and some subsequent press, has no lasting value and does not meet the notability requirements referenced. Lyncs (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTNEWS is quite controversial as Wikipedia is infact built on news. Anyway I think that there are grounds to believe this article should stay on. For example his rejection of a plea etc etc. I say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is infact built on news" Tell that to WP:MILHIST or WP:HV, WP:NOTNEWS appears to be controversial only in your own opinion:Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Not News? Bob House 884 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PERP. Just another article about a murderer. WP generally does not have articles about every murder. LibStar (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PERP and WP:ONEVENT, we aren't a database of bog-standard criminals Bob House 884 (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Hercules

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

TV Episode of a (somewhat) minor show. Does not seem to pass the general notability guidelines or the suggestions for fiction. Currently the article is just plot with a trivia section. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are others that may need to get the axe (depending on the outcome here. Also, for comparison please note that current big-name shows like CSI: Miami generally do not get articles for individual episodes (see example). Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no third party coverage seems to exist. --Anthem of joy (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2011 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny A. Jacobs

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

Unreferenced BLP with controversial Danny_A._Jacobs#Biography statement. Also find reliable third party sources (not IMDb). Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 21:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I believe this article was created mainly because ones for other individuals named Danny Jacobs existed, namely Danny Jacobs (actor) and the Australian footballer Danny Jacobs. There has been no real substance added to this article since its creation by a now-indefinitely blocked user. The {{Citation needed}} tag was added by me back in October and the statement still remains uncited today. There appears to be no movement to improve this article, and this particular Danny Jacobs seems borderline in terms of notability anyway. Deleting it probably wouldn't be much of a loss to the project. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced BLP. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:33, 15 May 2011 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian new religious movement

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

appears to be Neologism and complete WP:OR to boot. Many groups with beliefs and practices derived from Christianity could potentially be classified under this term if it existed outside the confines of Wikipedia. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided The article talks about various things, all of which seem to be notable. I'm not sure if lumping them together is the best thing to do, but the material should be covered somehow. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a POV fork of List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents or similar? They use the contents from that article to comprise a large portion of the article. I, too, am undecided. While I don't see anything obviously biased, my inner "POV" alarm is going off. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when you put things together in a group that can give a biased impression. What if there was a "List of controversial people from New York" and included the Son of Sam and Donald Trump? Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like an attempt to push a non-notable neologism as a PC term for the vaguely pejorative concept "sect." Carrite (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PC term=POV fork. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only commented above, but the more I see it, the more of a pov fork it appears to be. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (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.