Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 13

< 12 June	14 June >

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 speedy keep per WP:CSK #1–2 (non-admin closure) Mephistophelian (contact) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Efik language

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

Correction: In actuality, Efik, because of it's importance in trade and other such activities, is widely spoken by Annang and Ibibio people . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.9.101 (talk • contribs)

It might hold for both. Ibibio, sometimes seens as a dialect of Efik, is numerically the most important of such dialects and is according to Kaufman (1979) different enough from Efik to warrant separate description. In the region where it is spoken, it is also important in trade, but I can well imagine Ibibio people being also bilingual in Efik. — mark ✎ 08:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation of the 3 languages is incorrect. Efik is the official language name and the name by which the group of 3 languages together are known. The 3 sub languages are then Ibibio, Anaang and Efik. Even though Efik has the least speakers, it's the official name. So the redirect should not be to the "Ibibio Language" it should be to the "Efik Language".

Ethnologue would seem to agree, so moved. Pls provide refs if you object to it being called 'Efik'. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Ibibio language template==

If you are a native speaker of Ibibio then you can help translate this template into your own language:

ibb

This user is a native speaker of Ibibio.

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== objection to not clarifying that the phrases are Ibibio ==

{{Efik language:move|Ibibio langauge}} Kwamikagami do you speak Efik? I doubt it because if you did you wouldn't want to move Efik language to a page written with Ibibio phrases! Efik is a different language and not the official spoken language in Akwa ibom State where Ibibio language is spoken. The 2 languages do have similarity just like Spanish and French, but the content of the page and phrases is still written in Ibibio. Seems you are from Ghana and you do not understand that are calling a page Spanish language while the content like phrases is written in French. [added by User:Ibibiogrl on 15:08, 2011 May 31]

If you want to clarify that the phrases are Ibibio, then you can write in the article that they're Ibibio, as I just did. It's not necessary to have two copies of the article, one called "Efik" and one called "Ibibio". In fact, per WP:content fork, we shouldn't have two copies of the article. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look Here Kwami DO NOT CONFUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO LEARN THESE LANGUAGES! What I have a problem with is you calling it Ibibio-Efik??? What does that mean? Do you speak any of these languages? I doubt it because if you did there wouldn't be this arguements. Theses languages are just like Spanish, French and Italian. Is there a language called Spanish-French? STOP CONFUSING PEOPLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use English here. In English, the names Ibibio, Efik, and Ibibio-Efik are often used for the same thing. We explain that in the article. We also explain that the phrases are Ibibio rather than Efik proper. That shouldn't be confusing. As for Ukwa, your ignorance is not evidence of anything. We are based on WP:reliable sources, not on your opinions. Please read the welcome links on your talk page, so that you understand how things are done here. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just as well you deleted the phrases. We're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or phrasebook. — kwami (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then Take my language out of your Trash! YOU ARE THE IGNORANT ONE! WHICH ENGLISH WORD IS CALLED IBIBIO? Ibibio and Efik does not mean the same thing ad is not the same language! Ukwa is an Igbo language & dosen't have anything to do with Ibibio and Efik language.

You use english Here Right? But it's asking to interprete the page in Ibibio. An Ignorant person like you who knows nothing about thse languages doesn't have any Right to edit a page that you know nothing about! You give the sane people who created the original page in the begining a Bad image.

You really need to take my advice and learn how things work around here. This petulant behaviour of yours will just get you WP:blocked, as someone else has already warned you.

If you want to discuss changes to the article, fine. But you need sources for your claims, and so far your edits have been incoherent, such as denying that Efik is Ibibio, and then describing how it is Ibibio. — kwami (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What more source do you need? I am a native Ibibio, I speak the language, I also speak Efik language only because I've lived in Calabar. I gave you the online Ibibio dictionary already. Why did you believe that the phrases were written in Ibibio??? If Ibibio and Efik means the same thing? I told you the 2 languages were like Spanish and French( Ibibio: Aba die? Efik: Etie didie? Spanish: Cómo estás? French: Comment ça va?), worst still they're not even spoken in the same state. Am not the one who wrote those phrases, also I don't think the original ibibio group who created the page have realized that you've ruin the whole page.

The page was created to help Akwa Ibomites who haven't lived in Akwa Ibom before to learn their language. I Don't think you are a Nigerian because i wouldn't be having these arguements with you.

I've wriiiten a whole lecture on this if you need more sources check; http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=609355.msg8248002#msg8248002 and http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=244880.msg6497335#msg6497335

It's not just a matter of sources, but of intelligible edits. When you're done with the article, it's inconsistent and incoherent. I don't care what your sources are, that's just bad writing. And in any case some blog you post does not count as a source. See WP:reliable sources.

We can have separate articles on Ibibio and Efik, if you care to develop them. But we cannot have the same article under two names, nor an article on Ibibio-Efik that does not include Ibibio, nor an article on Efik that does not include Efik. A little common sense would be helpful. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THE NAIRALAND BLOG I POSTED IS MUCH MORE RELIABLE THAN WIKIPEDIA! It is not BIASED like Wikipedia which takes the views of somebody like you who doesn't know anything about Ibibio and Efik, over me a Native. "nor an article on Ibibio-Efik that does not include Ibibio, nor an article on Efik that does not include Efik. A little common sense would be helpful" RE-READ YOUR SENTENCES AGAIN & TELL ME WHO SOUNDS INCOHERENT, AND WHO NEEDS COMMON SENSE!

How can somebody write an Efik topic without including Efik? Again there's nothing like Ibibio-Efik, there's either Ibibio or Efik! Since you insist on Editing Nigerian Languages, You should visit Nairaland and Read about the Nigerian people, so you will understand who they are AND ALSO NOT BE MAKING IGNORANT COMMENTS LIKE IBIBIO-EFIK, or include Ukwa(an Igboid language) under Efik and Ibibio. The Original page was talking about IBIBIO LANGUAGE! Alone! That page has been like that for almost 5yrs, am sure there were many Efiks who read it and didn't see anything wrong with it, because it wasn't talking about their Efik language. But you who did not know anything about these languages change it to Efik Language, because you thought they were stupid writing about Efik language without including it? Why don't you return the Ibibio language page back to how it was in February and leave the Efik language page for me to develop with the real Efik language, am sure there are many Efiks who will update it more.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KWAMI! Am still Waiting for you to Return the Ibibio Language page to how it was in February. You can begin Efik language page I will develop it only after you have returned the Ibibio page back to how it was. I wouldn't bother much about this, except that it's my language an this Wikipedia link shows up when searched more than other credible pages. Also on facebook it shows up as Ibibio-Efik, making it difficult for people to select which language the speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't throw a tantrum. You're not getting that incoherent version back. Say what you want, as above, provide references, as above, and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, go away. I won't reply further unless you provide something relevant to respond to. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you need to READ all your above responses & tell me who is Incoherent and Irrelevant. First you said to provide sources, I did then you said "We can have separate articles on Ibibio and Efik, if you care to develop them" I told you to return the Ibibio language page back 1ST cause according to U, we cannot have two of the same pages. Now You Are Saying What??? See what you can do as per What? Why did you edit a language that you Knew Absolutely Nothing About? Or is this your Personal website that you can do anything You Want?

I don't need to give you anymore Sources because it's as easy as googleing Efik Language and you will see it's completely different from Ibibio language. Also the nairaland page had outside links. But incase your vision is limited or you're too lazy to search, here are sources again.

Efik Language http://www.maobongoku.com/maobong_mypeople_efiklang_origin.htm and http://www.maobongoku.com/maobong_mypeople_efiklang_orthography.htm and http://www.archive.org/stream/efiklanguage00unafrich/efiklanguage00unafrich_djvu.txt

Same above website that had a book on Efik language also has different books on ibibio language http://www.archive.org/details/rosettaproject_ibb_detail-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although am sure that you had already realized this unless You Are extremely Slow as Per stupid, Dumb etc. THESE LINKS WILL FUTHER CLARIFY THAT THESE LANGUAGES ARE SEPARARTE & NOT THE SAME!

Ibibio language http://globalrecordings.net/en/langcode/ibb and http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Courses/Summer04/Lexicography/IbibioDictionary/ibibio_dictionary01.pdf

Did you see any of those pages talking about Ibibio-Efik??? I told you there is nothing like Ibibio-Efik escept here on wikipedia Thanks to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are not familiar with Ibibio-Efik does not mean it does not exist. Take Oko Essien, an Ibibio, who wrote A grammar of the Ibibio language in 1990. He says, in Ibibio names: their structure and their meanings:

The name Ibibio, or Ibibio-Efik (as it is referred to by Greenberg) is applied to a group for the most part speaking mutually intelligible dialects including Ibibio, Efik, Annang, Eket, Ibeno, Andoni and Oron.

According to oral tradition and written historical sources, [refs] the Ibibio people are made up of smaller units or subgroups among whom are the Annang, the Efik, the Eket, the Oron and the Ibeno. Using geographical labels, Forde and Jones categorize these Ibibio sub-groups thus:

Annang — Western Ibibio

Efik — Riverain Ibibio

Eket — Southern Ibibio

Oron — Southern Ibibio

Ibeno — Delta Ibibio

and,

Unless explicitly stated, Ibibio is used generically to cover Ibibio proper, Annang and Efik in most contents in this book.

He prefers "Ibibio" as the cover term, others prefer "Efik" (which is why this page was moved), and still others prefer "Ibibio-Efik" so as not to elevate one group over the other. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE IS UKWA IN THE ABOVE LIST? You said before that because am not familar with it does not mean that it doesn't exsit, So which ibibio sub-group is UKWA? Who is incoherent & Irrelevant Now & who needs Common sense??? So You Are Quoting a GreenBerg? Does GreenBerg know anything about Nigerian languages or Ibibio, does he speak Ibibio, also does Forde & Jones know anything detail about Nigerian languages? To them Youruba, Igbo and Ibibio are all the same. Then you accuse me of being incoherent???

So you are now calling them Ibibio sub-groups, I thought you moved the page because you claimed that according to your sources Efik was the main name and official language, you also said;

"In actuality, Efik, because of it's importance in trade and other such activities, is widely spoken by Annang and Ibibio people " and "It might hold for both. Ibibio, sometimes seens as a dialect of Efik, is numerically the most important of such dialects and is according to Kaufman (1979)"

"The organisation of the 3 languages is incorrect. Efik is the official language name and the name by which the group of 3 languages together are known. The 3 sub languages are then Ibibio, Anaang and Efik. Even though Efik has the least speakers, it's the official name. So the redirect should not be to the "Ibibio Language" it should be to the "Efik Language".

NOW YOU ARE CHANGING TUNE & CALLING THEM ALL IBIBIO! YOU KEEP ON GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES. I will Not continue this arguements Again! Am going to do what I have to do as I refuse to see a Biased Website make a Joke of My Language, am going to report this to the Akwa Ibom organisation who created the page, and Wikipedia will only have to delete the page because the will not be able to Block everybody.

Now you're contradicting yourself: You're complaining that this article needs to be called "Efik", but it is called Efik! How can I take you seriously when you say such things?

Also, I just read the Maobong site you linked to above.[1] The best I can say about it is that whoever wrote it is utterly ignorant about the topic. Say what you want for this article coherently, so that people can understand you by reading your words, and supply reliable sources as references, not some random idiot who posted a web page.

As for you threat to disrupt Wikipedia if you do not get your way, we don't take kindly to that. If you carry through, we'll probably just protect this article so that you cannot edit it. If, however, editors from Ibibioland start disrupting the encyclopedia, we might have to put in a range block so that no-one from Ibibioland can edit any Wikipedia article. Hopefully your threat is just bluster and it won't come to that. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KWAMI YOU WROTE THIS! "The organisation of the 3 languages is incorrect. Efik is the official language name and the name by which the group of 3 languages together are known. The 3 sub languages are then Ibibio, Anaang and Efik. Even though Efik has the least speakers, it's the official name. So the redirect should not be to the "Ibibio Language" it should be to the "Efik Language".

YOU SAID THAT WAS YOUR REASON OF CREATING A RE-DIRECT! THE ORIGINAL PAGE WAS TALKING ABOUT IBIBIO LANGUAGE! The dialect spoken by Ibibio's of Akwa Ibom State. The 3&1/2 million people are Ibibios. If Efiks. Annangs and all the rest where included it would've been almost 10 million! Also if you are calling it Ibibio-Efik, what about Ananng which has more native speakers than Efik?

You also said that under wikipedia rule two of the same pages cannot be created, why are you coping the Ibibio proper language page that I created and creating the same page again under ibibio dialect? Like I said you have should not be editing a page that you Know nothing About! Mmaobong Oku is an Efik historian woman is writing the history of her ancestors using references from an original Efik language co-ordinator Elder Prince Ofion Akak, who has written several books on Efik Grammar

http://www.maobongoku.com/maobong_mypeople_efiklang_author.htm

and you claimed it's ignorant. You are the ignorant one who doesn't know anything about these languages it seems to me that you are just using this pages to exercise your administrators authorities. You are abusing that Power!

I have been contributing to wikipedia since 2008 as an anonymous, I thought it was great them allowing my contributions without requiring me to be a member. I just signed on recently because I thought somebody made an error changing Ibibio language page to Efik language. Obviously I was wrong because this is just a joke to you, and a playgound to test you admin powers!

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY A THIRD PARTY HAS REFUSED TO STEP IN! BY your actions you have proved that you Do Not deserve to be an Administrator.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibibiogrl (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Pang

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

local failure Yotemordis (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the subject notwithstanding, could you please convey an argument for deletion that is in accordance with the deletion policy? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wēi ěr mǎ páng ain't got no good sources baby!Yotemordis (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is adequately sourced and no valid argument has been made for deletion. Francis Bond (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has not achieved anything and has very little notability.Yotemordis (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad faith nomination. --Lambiam 01:14, 14 June 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Springs (BART station)

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

Hoax, this place does not exist, it might but not even being built yet! Yotemordis (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax, in fact, BART's own website has a page on that future station, and there is non-trivial coverage in the Oakland Tribune. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Did the nominator (who appears to be on an AfD nomination spree, having nominated 11 articles already in the one hour since the account was created) read the article at all, and check the references? --Lambiam 00:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well its not encyclopedic it needs expansion.Yotemordis (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs expansion we should expand it, not delete it. --Lambiam 00:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This station is under construction and is notable. The article can be improved and expanded as construction continues, and when the station opens. The article is referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I withdraw my delete.Yotemordis (talk) 01:11, 14 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Sweet

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

Unaccomplished local politician, poorly sourced Yotemordis (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, well sourced. Bad faith nomination. --Lambiam 01:16, 14 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artichoke Joe's Casino

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

Non notable casino Yotemordis (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. The article is a stub, but still explains why the topic is notable, with reliable sources. Also plenty of Google news hits. --Lambiam 01:20, 14 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Neustadter

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

Non notable Yotemordis (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. As stated in the article and easily sourceable, the subject is the screenwriter of several notable screenplays and the winner of several notable awards. Also plenty of Google news hits. --Lambiam 01:24, 14 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean pop music scandals

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

Contested PROD. All the information here is included in the relevant articles, so this is needless duplication of information. I see no benefit in this being a separate article. I note that there do not appear to be similar articles for pop music scandals from other countries, and although this is not a reason to delete this one per se, it is an indication that there is no need for this type of list. If this article is kept, it should be re-written as a list with brief details ("xyz was sued by abc becase of mno") with links to the relevant sections in the artists' articles. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concluding admin might be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage/Archive, which also mentions the IPs in this discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are 4 keep !votes from Standage and his socks in the collapse box below. Standage is the user who created the article and was blocked after the WP:SPI mentioned above. Robman94 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended/lengthy comments (largely by Standage, the article's creator, and Phantomsteve)

Comment I came online and tried to fix this article up a bit and I think it is viable. The reason for deletion is not valid. Material concerning scandals is regularly deleted from the K-pop wikisites for individual performers or bands. I would argue that even if the information is included in other wikipages, that's ok. Joe Dimaggio does not deserve a separate wiki page because he is mentioned in the Yankee page (or vice versa)? If you look at the history of the Wonder Girl page you see that material someone deemed adverse to that group was routinely removed despite the fact it was cited by a reputable source. This topic stands on its own. Indeed, it is those wikipedia pages for pop groups that should be deleted because they are often little more than fan sites. Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation. I know the companies want to keep this information as secret as possible, but this was news. SM has been sued for "slave contracts" and the Wonder Girls didn't have insurance and came into the country on F-1 visas. This was huge in Korea and other Asian countries. The references I found were from reputable and TOP newspapers like the Herald and Times etc. I am expecting other people to add other scandals (current and from the past) as time goes by - I just wanted to give this page a good start. I do not see the rationale for just making a list and then referencing other articles. This is a 100% viable page. Thank you. Standage (Standage (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

'Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation - that would seem to imply that this is original research or synthesis, neither of which are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. All of the information either is or should be in the bands'/acts' articles. If the information is referenced at an independent reliable source, and is being removed from an article, then you should ask for help at the administrator's noticeboard or page protection. Editors who continually removed properly sourced information can be blocked or banned from Wikipedia. However, neither the "this should be investigated" or "the information isn't being kept in other articles" arguments show any reason for keeping this page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, one added comment. Because truthful and well documented facts have been removed from the Wonder Girls article in the past, that can happen again and probably will happen again. At one point someone was using "tweets" by performers as news "sources" to contest a reputably sourced article, which shows the extent to which fans of this entertainment company will or might go to potentially distort the truth. Do people want this topic removed because they care about Wikipedia or because they care about the image of a pop group and its entertainment company? I don't know. Come on folks, the truth is the truth. I feel that by eliminating or changing this page wikipedia is literally "covering up" what have been huge news stories and a significant and documented phenomenon in Korea. This is an independent phenomenon that requires more than a list just as the NYPD scandals page required more than a list. Just let the page stand. Believe it or not, I put some work into this and there is no reason for this page to go down and every reason for it to stay up as a normal wiki page just like the NYPD scandals page. Thank you. P.S. Ok, I stayed up late and did a little more reseach. The first sign of problems in K-pop seems to pop up in 2002. There was a huge payola scandal. This scandal itself does not warrant a wiki page and it can't be referenced back to any particular group or band. That seems to prove my point that wiki needs a korean pop music scandal page. Standage (Standage (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
As I said above, if adequately sourced information (i.e. sourced at reliable independent sources) is being removed, there are ways of dealing with that (i.e. administrators' noticeboard or page protection - see my previous comment for links). Although there is coverage of individual "scandals", I couldn't find any coverage about scandals in Korean pop music as a whole - putting separate "scandals" together onto one page is research or synthesis of information. Has the press covered the payola scandal? If so, it can be mentioned in the Payola article. Has the press covered the range of scandals, rather than as individual scandals? If so, then a few references would be useful - if it can be shown that the subject of scandals as a whole in the Korean music industry has reliable, independent sourcing, rather than just each individual one, then I'd be happy to consider changing my position. As it stands, I see no evidence that this subject has been covered at reliable, independent sources (news, books, scholarly research). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to remind people that other articles which exist or do not exist have no bearing on this discussion (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - we are discussing this article, not other ones. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read this from the source you quoted: "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." It seems you left that part out. Comparing this Korean Pop Music Scandals article to the NYPD Scandals article is 100% valid. Neither article will include independent research or 'synthesis". Not to seem sarcastic, but why are you trying to rip down the Korean pop scandals article and not the NYPD scandals article since, basically, they have the same rationale and same process of development involved. If the NYPD article is good, the K pop scandals article is good. standage (Standage (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) standage (Standage (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, I think you are missing the point. I also do not understand, and I say this respectfully, why you jumped on this article virtually as soon as it was worked on today. How is listing scandals research? Oh my goodness, I have to be honest and say that seems like a real stretch to me. Also, I do not feel it is wrong for someone, like the person above, to show that other articles exist comparable to this one. If you said, "Wait, we can't have a Chicago Cubs article..." I can't say, "But this article about the baseball Cubs meets the same standards as the hockey Blackhawks article"? That's basically what the person above was saying in regard to this article and the NYPD article. Again, there is a general category called: Payola Scandals which cannot be referenced back to any particular group or band. What about the category of suicides in K-pop that might be due to extreme pressures to succeed? This is a general category that has been researched that can't be referenced back to a particular performer. Unfortunately, your argument doesn't fly. I have to be honest and point that out. I really do not understand why you feel this category has to come down? It works. This is a well-documented phenomenon - well sourced. Time magazine, Korea Herald, Korea Times etc. This is a viable documented topic with viable and well-documented subcategories. standage (Standage (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) standage (Standage (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standage (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me please clarify this statement: "'Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation." At no time did I say I was going to do any investigating and everything I have put into this article is well sourced by completely objective news sources. The individual scandals that have happened and that are going to happen should continue, obviously, to be investigated by the journalists and scholars - like TIME magazine - who have provided the well-documented source material that I am using. This broad and REAL category requires Wikipedia documentation. Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a social phenomenon - this requires that an encyclopedia document them. At no time did I imply that I was going to do independent research and other wiki pages use the same methodology as this page. Exactly the same methodology and nobody is trying to remove them. Please pardon my exasperation, but what is really the big deal here? This is a well-documented and legitimate contribution to wikipedia. I apologize for saying this, but this situation is quite frustrating. standage (Standage (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC))(Standage (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standage (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to comment on a few things here, some of which I didn't earlier in the discussion when they were brought up. I'm doing it now, as I'm not sure when/if I can next comment here as I'm working for the next few nights, so can't easily edit (this AfD is far too large for me to edit on my mobile phone!)
- Firstly, the Joe Dimaggio/Yankees thing: Joe Dimaggio may be mentioned at the Yankees article and vice-versa, but that does not mean that separate articles are not warranted. There is plenty of coverage of Dimaggio at reliable, independent sources. There is plenty of coverage of the Yankees as an entity as reliable, independent sources. Therefore both are valid articles.
- Secondly, the NYPD article has two or three entries which do not have a stand-alone entry about the scandal itself - they should perhaps be removed (that is a separate issue from this discussion though). The other entries on that page are perfectly valid as a list: they have brief details of the scandal, and then an entire article about each scandal - not just a paragraph or two in another article. The article under discussion here is not in the same boat - there are no stand-alone articles about the scandals listed, just a paragraph (at most two paragraphs) in the articles of the bands involved. There is also not enough information available to warrant stand-alone articles for any of the entries on the list of scandals.
- At no time did I imply that I was going to do independent research and other wiki pages use the same methodology as this page. Exactly the same methodology and nobody is trying to remove them. - At no time did I state that you were going to do research. Again, the problem with comparing different articles is that generally you are not comparing like with like - and if we allowed that argument, then that would mean that if this article is deleted, others would have to automatically be deleted - whereas every article should be discussed independently.
- Please pardon my exasperation, but what is really the big deal here? - the 'big deal' is that I do not believe that this particular article meets the criteria for inclusion. The whole reason why we have this discussion, though, is to allow the community as a whole to come to a consensus. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, I will take no particular pleasure in that result; contrariwise, if the consensus is that the article should be kept, I will not be overly bothered: the community consensus is the important thing. I might be incorrect in thinking this article should be deleted - in which case, I trust in this AfD to show that to be the consensus (I make mistakes, and have had other AfDs where I have thought the article should be deleted, but it was kept). Likewise, you might be incorrect in thinking this article should be kept - in which case, the AfD will show a consensus for deletion. Whatever happens, this is not a personal thing. Let's face it, if I had been determined to delete it, there were two speedy deletion nominations - I declined the first one outright, as the article did not meet the criteria used. The second one I also declined, but having read the article again, I thought that it was not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia - so I Proposed it for deletion. When that was disputed, I re-read the article, decided that I still thought it should be deleted, so brought it here.
- This is a well-documented and legitimate contribution to wikipedia - the individual scandals are well-documented, and as such are individually, as part of the band/acts' articles, legitimate contributions. The overall subject of scandals within the Korean music industry have not been discussed. If there was an article/research/etc in a reliable, independent source which discussed several of these cases in one single article/etc, then I would agree that this is a legitimate contribution, but I could not find an article like that - just articles which discussed one scandal individually. That is where it is skating close to synthesis.
- Another problem is that there is no definition of what a scandal is. Most people would agree that the Payola scandal would meet a definition of a scandal (although I note that the article only discusses the start of the investigation 10 years ago - what was the outcome? Did anybody - especially those named in that section - get charged with anything? Was the claim found to have merit?). However, who decided that Seo getting married and not letting the public know is a scandal - marriage is a private thing, and if he wants to hide it, there's no problem as long as he's not trying to marry a second person bigamously, or having a relationship with another woman who does not know. Many people would not call this a scandal.
- Another problem is that there is original research/synthesis in the article, in every section (apart from 1, which I couldn't check the references for as the Korea Times website isn't responding in IE, Safara, Chrome or Firefox) - see the article's talk page for details, as it's too much to go into here, and is not a reason for deletion in and of itself - if the article is kept, the OR/synth will need to be dealt with
I think that covers everything! Even when I am not at work, I doubt I will be commenting further here, as I think I have made my position abundantly clear. However, I will be reading this page every day (that I can do on my mobile!) - and if there is a convincing (to my mind) argument for keeping the article, I will change my recommendation from delete to keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the following comment is from an editor identified as a sockpuppet of Standage (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have never dabbled in wikipedia before but something is very wrong here and I feel compelled to try to jump in.

1) Does this article meet standards for inclusion? This boils down to: is this is real subject? This boils down to: have there been Korean pop music scandals? Yes there have been. More than are listed so far based on my google search. This article meets the standards for inclusion.

I am also highly puzzled by the passion to either remove this article or water it down. There is no legitimate reason to do that. It is not wrong to ask what a person's motives are to withhold factual and documented information. That's called censorship and I think censorship stinks.

2) I am troubled by the attitude of the person who wants this page deleted. He seems to be a wiki expert (insider?) which will give him an advantage over newbies who come out here. Am I wasting my time by coming to this page's defense?

Also, at one point he gives people orders about how they should approach this debate. He falsely tells people to ignore directions about comparing articles. He falsely tells people that whether or not this article is similar to another does not matter. It does matter and wikipedia says so. This is so wrong for him to do.

3) He also cops an attitude when he says he'll be ok with the idea that the page remains if there is a consensus that it should remain. Wrong my friend. For the second time you seem to have created the rules yourself. The page is up and should come down only if there is a consensus that it should come down. Its not the other way around. I can understand the frustration shown in this debate toward some of your arguments.

4) At another point, taking an insider's attitude, he arrogantly states he could have totally deleted this article already, but is showing a sense of wonderful benevolence by keeping it up. I want to file a formal complaint against this person but am new and do not know how. Who does this person think he is? Am I dealing with the King of wikipedia? I could have deleted this site already if I had wanted to? What kind of uncivil attitude is that? OMG. Who is this guy causing all this trouble and for what? Administrator, please end this nonsense now! Do you condone this type of attitude out here?

5) I do not believe that this page should be limited to "references" to other articles for a point already raised. You can't link "Korean payola scandal" to just one girls or boys group. This is a new article and so further categories may be established that can't be linked. I googled "pop star suicides Korea" and there were some. There were also articles that helped to explain this phenomenon. A serious section based on reliable research about this phenomenon might be appropriate under this heading of Korean Pop Music Scandals.

6) Limiting this site to just references to other sites makes it (more) difficult for the facts to be read. There is no need to limit this article. This is a form of censorship. If wikipedia starts censoring stuff I am going to be livid. That will be a terrible situation and I do not think other wikipedia users are going to appreciate that. There is absolutely no reason to water this article down. Please find another crusade. This seems to be a crusade for censorship.

7) The NYPD scandals page and this Korean Pop scandals page are quite similar. I do not see how this can be denied. There is no image on this page, I am guessing, because how can you present an image of a pop music scandal? Other than that, I agree that Korean pop music scandals is as real a subject as NYPD scandals. As for the lack of pages about scandals in other countries' pop scenes, this is why this is such a unique and necessary topic. K-pop is spreading all over the world but it seems plagued by one scandal after another. It is called K-pop because it is different in tone, mood, and a zillion other factors from J-pop or American pop. That it has been plagued with scandals is part of what makes K-pop K-pop. Even I know this.

8) I am shocked that this battle is even occurring. Trying to be as objective as I can, as a music lover and not a K-pop lover, this is a wikipedia page in development. Give it a chance. I promise the person who so wants this page to be destroyed that the world will not crumble if this page remains. I simply do not understand why this has become a crusade. What is at stake here? Everything I read was true and documented by better sources than most pop music pages.

9) The big deal is that I felt compelled to put my two cents out here because I really think that wikipedia should present factual information. All I can see are faulty excuses to remove this page. There is no legitimate reason to remove this page.

10) Finally, I am really a bit upset that the person who so urgently wants this page removed seems to act like an expert and an insider out here, giving (false) orders to people and making up rules as he goes along. Is this going to be a legitimate and fair process on the part of wikipedia or can people come out here with "expertize" and an "insiders" attitude and manipulate things?

This is really silly. Leave this page alone please. Let the truth be demonstrated. That's wikipedia's function. The demand that this page be deleted is so un-wikipedia that it is not even funny. arlenesgrocerygal Arlenesgrocerygal (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)NOTE: This account is a confirmed sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator (SPI)[reply]

Listen. I just checked the wikipedia delete page. There are four criteria for an original article. The work I did out here on this article meets ALL FOUR criteria. The guy who wants to delete this seems to be pulling criteria out of nowhere (among other things already mentioned). Honestly. I am so upset - I thought wikipedia was going to be a good and enriching experience and instead I think that some people delete for the sake of deleting or perhaps some people have hidden motives to delete or water down articles. If certain facts are potentially upsetting to some powerful people or companies, do these articles get deleted? I hope not.

My final word: This article is a substantial and meaningful contributuion to wikipedia. It meets the criteria for a new article and I believe that as time goes by others will contribute to it and make it better. Or I will come out here and try to improve it when I have time. It meets the criteria to exist and it should exist as an article and not as a list (for already mentioned reasons). Thank you.

I will trust in the integrity of the system here since I have enjoyed using and supporting wikipedia in the past. I feel that even if a thousand sock puppets or other creatures were to come out here to denounce or seek deletion or watering down of this article, wikipedia will do what is right. I have my fingers crossed. I am out here defending my work. This is why I was willing to fight so hard. I have to ask myself why this other guy is fighting so hard to delete this article? That doesn't make sense to me - someone even mentioned that he/she has not seen this level of "discussion" before. standage Standage (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regard to the person above, I would invite you to look at the "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz" user page on wikipedia. This is a person with a chronic need for controversy who seems to spend huge amounts of time on wikipedia looking for trouble and who has, apparently, awarded himself several wikipedia "awards." In regard to the "Wonder Girls" wiki page he mentions, please notice that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz made at least three documented deletions to that wikipedia page, removing material that was CATEGORICALLY documented by the Korea Herald newspaper. He did this late at night on the 10th of June 2010. This seems to indicate he is not out here to help make wikipedia an "objective" source of information, but to ensure biased articles lacking in factual statements. Also, he/she resorts to personal attacks here and incivility and makes his own unfounded allegations. The page I worked on is a work in progress, as are many pages. Given time the page will be fixed up. There is definitely a unifying thread. These are definitely "scandals." Again, this is a person with an agenda who regularly deletes anything he/she doesn't like. And, these are not newspaper allegations - these are facts from Time Magazine, The Korea Herald, The Korea Times etc. I knew that sock puppets and others were going to start making their appearance. Again, I have nothing else to say. I hope wikipedia does the right thing. Thank you. standage Standage (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point I do not have the time to deal with this type of nonsense. I feel as I am being pulled into greater and greater pettiness through this wikipage and so I am removing the Korean scandals page - only because this whole process sickens me and I need to focus on other matters. This was and is and will be a viable topic and sooner or later a wikipage will be up here about these scandals. Also, I really do not know how to navigate my way through wikipedia well and do not want to learn how. Basically, I can live without this and I do not think this is a fight worth my time and effort. And, frankly, the truth is out there about these companies and it is only a matter of time before some American journalist somewhere writes a book, maybe entitled: The Dark Side of K-pop. hint hint. There's certainly enough material out there. I am assuming that someone who knows how to navigate through wikipedia will kindly bring this message to the attention of an administrator. The wikipage itself will go blank - I am not sure how to remove it completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standage (talk • contribs) 03:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (I don't know how to vote!) I am really frustrated by this situation so I think this is going to be my final word (I was up all night defending my work here). Someone suggested that the OP had voted? Am I the OP? I never voted - I just typed "keep" in imitation of the other guy, I hope this is a vote. I had never participated in Wiki much either (I fixed up one other article many months ago using a different log in name). Standage (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jesus Christ. The person who started this attack against this web site posted all kinds of negative crap on the discussion section of Korean Pop Music Scandals. How much more evidence does anyone need that there are malicious reasons to destroy this page? This guy has way too much time on his hands. Also, I am supposed to give credibility to a guy like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz? Jesus. Keep the page. Many pages start as works in progress that are developed through the wiki community. People are supposed to be stupid out here and not know this? How many lousy sites have I come across out here that got better as time went on. Jesus Christ. Some people should eb banned from wikipedia. I'm not mentioning Phantomsteve and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.66.4 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC) NOTE: This IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator (SPI)[reply]
Keep Are you insane? You should be banned from wikipedia!!!!!! You deliberately deleted information you disagreed with!!!!! I am reporting you immediately. Also, you deleted a vote! Oh my God what is wrong with you? How about if I randomly delete your vote?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.179.74 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — 71.249.179.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator (SPI)[reply]

- Nothing was deleted, the extremely long, non-policy based discussion was moved into a collapse box, which gives readers the choice of whether they want to plough through it or not. But if you'd like to report it, WP:ANI would be the place. Robman94 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Man there is some shadiness going on in this discussion. I thought Sara Palin followers were bad. This reeks of coverup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.21.82 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — 68.167.21.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator (SPI)[reply]

Keep How is this not relevant: The reason for deletion is not valid. Material concerning scandals is regularly deleted from the K-pop wikisites for individual performers or bands. I would argue that even if the information is included in other wikipages, that's ok. Joe Dimaggio does not deserve a separate wiki page because he is mentioned in the Yankee page (or vice versa)? If you look at the history of the Wonder Girl page you see that material someone deemed adverse to that group was routinely removed despite the fact it was cited by a reputable source. This topic stands on its own. Indeed, it is those wikipedia pages for pop groups that should be deleted because they are often little more than fan sites. Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation. I know the companies want to keep this information as secret as possible, but this was news. SM has been sued for "slave contracts" and the Wonder Girls didn't have insurance and came into the country on F-1 visas. This was huge in Korea and other Asian countries. The references I found were from reputable and TOP newspapers like the Herald and Times etc. I am expecting other people to add other scandals (current and from the past) as time goes by - I just wanted to give this page a good start. I do not see the rationale for just making a list and then referencing other articles. This is a 100% viable page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.21.82 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — 68.167.21.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: This IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Standage, the article's creator (SPI)[reply]

- With all due respect, your claim of giving the page a "good start" is not valid as you haven't made any edits to the page in question. In fact, the only other edit that you have made, outside of this AfD discussion, was a very minor edit to the Nick Fowler page.[2] Robman94 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a reason to delete, but as currently written this is a list of scandals, and should be converted to a proper stand-alone list (per nom). Closest similar articles I can find are Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department (which kind of resembles this article, but may lack appropriate main articles for some of its entries) and South Korean scandals (a proper stand-alone list). / edg ☺ ☭ 01:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Following this discussion all week, I still cannot decide between Listify or Delete as an attack page. I'd prefer a standalone list, which properly trimmed would be less WP:ATTACK, but since the Taiji secret marriage and Rain lawsuit items are hardly scandals, this would be a 4-item list at best, and sources don't verify "scandal" status for all the rest. Also, shouldn't this be South Korean? / edg ☺ ☭ 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Keep in mind also that this page was created by one user (there are updates by multiple accounts, but they are all socks of the original user) and that user has now been blocked, so unless someone else decides to take over updating the article, it's likely to stay in its current condition if it's kept. Robman94 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Figures. Delete per above. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - For the sake of completeness, I should point out that Standage has been blocked for 2 weeks, so if the article should be kept, presumably he would work on it after the block has expired. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oddly enough, this is probably most Discussion Articles for Discussion (AFD) that I've ever seen, Most people treat the D in AFD as deletion, and that hasn't happened here. (Has anyone other than the original poster voted?) The original poster seems to be *quite* open to the idea of having a Korean Pop Music Scandals page, *if* it can be improved. I think that one of the things to do is to try to turn most if not all of these into their own articles if possible, or to link to appropriate sections for the various groups. (would Interwiki links be appropriate here? I would imagine that some of these groups would be more likely to have pages on the Korean language Wikipedia). I don't think the length in any of the sections is too overmuch. Does anyone think that the Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department is *not* a good guide on how to transform this page (which may include a move to [[Pop Music scandals of Korea]]? And note to the previous poster, I don't see any demand by the original poster...Naraht (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - (!vote changed - see below) I don't see anything at either WP:Lists or WP:BLPCAT that states that all lists need to have references that support the list itself. As long as every item in the list is properly sourced, I don't see valid grounds to delete the list. However, the title may need to be changed to "List of..." in order to comply with the WP:MOS. Robman94 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This is an almost randomly selected set of stories, bordering on WP:COATRACKING, mostly pushed by an SPA who keeps trying to push his own version of events in the one one story where he's directly involved (Wonder Girls). Elevating routine business disputes to "scandals" is clearly not appropriate; being married without making announcements through one's publicist isn't scandalous; and reporting nine-year-old accusations without any followups is wretched editing. The section entitled "Plagiarism Scandal Involving Lee Hyori" is framed inappropriately, namimg performers who were supposedly duped by a well-known songwriter without identifying the actual culprit. There's no unifying thread here; it's just a collection about potentially unfavorable news stories about various performers, WP:INDISCRIMINATEly labeled "scandals," and piled up based on initial newspaper allegations without followups. It's a BLP and RS trainwreck. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the interest of not chasing away any other editors who might want to weigh in on this discussion, I have taken the bold step of collapsing the long list of non-policy based comments above, but feel free to read through them if you like. I have also changed my !vote above because, even though I believe that our policies allow for a list such as this, I don't have the confidence that any of the editors who have contributed to the page so far, have the ability to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Robman94 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merging this page into K-pop would be unacceptable, due to it's size, and why would this page want to be deleted? --Jeff (talk) (contribs) (email) 08:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin and commenting editors: please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage/Archive for more background on this discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the relevance of this article. Each event is notable only in that artist's page. Trying to merge individual events into a history of Kpop scandals is not for an encyclopedia. It's not that I disagree with them being mentioned. They are notable - but only to the artist referenced. Evaders99 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per nom. The value of a list of scandals in K-pop might be slim, but it is non-zero, and the cost of keeping such a list barely outweighs the cost of keeping a redirect. In the event that an epiphenomenon can be demostraated, then a substantial lead, or sections on that canbe added. If, as is contended, and is quite possible, industry insiders (or indeed anyone else, well meaning or otherewise) are removing pertinant information from the band/production company pages, then that is not ameliorated by duplicating the information elsewhere, that merely changes the locus. Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, I agree with User:Rich Farmbrough above that there may be value in having a list of 'scandals' in K-Pop (although how you'd objectively define 'scandal' I'm not sure), but the contents of this article are so poor that any such list would need to be written completely from scratch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:26, 22 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thy name is

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

Move to wiktionary, unsourced, speculative, or Yotemordis (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. This is more than a dicdef, sourced (although not quite reliably), and not speculative at all. --Lambiam 01:29, 14 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. De728631, you are free to either renominate or make a merge proposal on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Day

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

This song does not seem notable enough for its own article. Yotemordis (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Children Running Through. Per WP:Music articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. De728631 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knee baby

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

This is a neologism or dictionary entry, not notable not referenced. Yotemordis (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was referenced when you nominated it ([3]) but that page suggets that this is in fact a dictionary definition of only very limited regional importance. Move to Wiktionary and delete. De728631 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yotemordis has been blocked as a sockpuppet but I think we should nevertheless continue this deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary or redirect to birth order. I don't see how this can be expanded or rescued right now. The word is admittedly a slang term in a regional dialect. There is no evidence that it has any cultural significance beyond the title of a novel and one magazine article. I am hesitent to completely delete this, because it is a valid search term if anything, and even more so, someone could in theory create a whole article about it later on in the future. By the way, even a broken watch tells the correct time twice a day; even a banned user could have done some good. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and send to Wiktionary, as per explained rationale. It does seem like slang that does not have an established reason for notability here. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. There is no point in a redirect to birth order or elsewhere unless it is added to the target. Appears to be solely a regional term. TerriersFan (talk) 23:56, 21 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magick (Ryan Adams and the Cardinals song)

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

Non notable RS song, merge with article on album or musician. Yotemordis (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardinology. De728631 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blush Response

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

This is unreferenced and seems to be an ad for a college or amateur art project. No citations. OR. Yotemordis (talk) 23:27, 13 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leading ladies (game)

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

Unreferenced OR, some parlor game with no sources. Yotemordis (talk) 23:23, 13 June 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 keep, obviously notable and nominator hasn't read the article properly (not "136th place", but "136th running of the race"). Nominator needs to slow down. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schiergen

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

Non notable and uneventful athlete whose claim to fame is coming in 136th place! super stud, not even a paragraph. Yotemordis (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Don't "holder of the European winner-riding record" and three-times "German Derby winner" count for something? Lots of Google news hits. WP:BEFORE? --Lambiam 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this one does not seem noteworthy to me, not enough subject matter and the references are not linking to anything.Yotemordis (talk) 01:12, 14 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Down Down Baby

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

Non notable game, only played on a singular TV show. Merge into that article and delete this article. Not referenced. Yotemordis (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are quite a few Google scholar hits. Although I haven't evaluated them in depth, on a cursory examination they seem to establish notability. --Lambiam 00:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all i see is a link to youtube and a good reason to delete.Yotemordis (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see 38 hits, largely to such journals as Research Studies in Music Education, Journal of Research in Music Education, and Journal of Educational Computing Research. I see no link to YouTube. Are you using a different Google company for scholar search than the rest of us? --Lambiam 00:53, 14 June 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 close, nominator indef-blocked as sockpuppet. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fujimorism

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

This topic is not of note. Super stub. OR issues. Yotemordis (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stubbiness is not a ground for deletion. Enough Google news hits and Google scholar hits to establish notability. See also Category:Fujimorista politicians. --Lambiam 23:43, 13 June 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 as a copyright violation per WP:CSD#G12 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Beloved Freak 11:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Aitchison

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

Appears to fail WP:N. The largest potential claims for notability are publishing books (which do not appear to be heavily cited). I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. This sounds like a successful attorney, but not a notable one by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:04, 13 June 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) 17:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Emanuel (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)

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

This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps?Yotemordis (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. User:Yotemordis is blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. --Lambiam 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States. Synagogues are not infinite in number (there probably are not more than about one thousand Reform Judaism Temples in North America) and they are not required to have "national" fame to be notable. The nominator should note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE, WP:COMPETENCE especially by nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators as well as from seasoned Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE related discussions regarding User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) excessive deletionism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Being followed/stalked by two editors. IZAK (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive705#Being followed/stalked by two editors. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IZAK's reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has no sources at all, and I could not find any reliable sources showing enough coverage to establish notability. The only argument being asserted here is an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Atama頭 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added some sources, and a few notable facts about the synagogue. At least its sourced now. Tinton5 (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I still don't think it meets WP:N but those sources help with WP:V, thanks Tinton5. :) -- Atama頭 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. IZAK's reasoning is a personal attack against the nominator and also a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The congregation is unnotable and the article is ripe for deletion. Basket of Puppies 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I see any personal attack. In any event, even if there were one, that strikes me as perhaps a surprising # 1 reason for a keep vote. As to otherstuffexists, that guideline clearly states that such "comparisons ... may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." That is what I see as Izak's effort here -- he does have more than one part to his argument.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added sources and cleaned up the material there. It's the largest Reform synagogue in New Jersey, which has the second highest proportion of Jews of any state in the U.S. (after New York). Of course it's notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per updates since afd was initiated.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't check the form of article at the time that it was nominated, but at this point without even doing a wp:before search the article itself reflects sufficient RS sourcing to evidence it notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable to me, and in fact seems like the very kind of information that a person would hope to find on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfass (talk • contribs) [4]
Keep as Epeefleche--Yoavd (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments which have been made to keep this article include, "there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States." which amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; "nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators" which is not a reason to keep an article, and in fact once a questionable article has been discovered by an editor it is normal quality control practice to take a look at other articles created by that same editor to see if similar problems exists as noted in this response by an admin to the same claim [5]. One of the only arguments so far which seems to be potentially legitimate are that it is the largest reform synagogue in New Jersey, but that is only documented through an audio media release on a podcast. I have tried to search for reliable source coverage to establish the notability of such a claim and have not been able to locate it. The other notability claim is that it is a record holder for the largest number of simultaneous dreidel spins, which the cited source states was broken by Yeshiva University [6]. The notability of this type of record is questionable in the first place, as the only coverage I am able to find of it is the fact that the record was broken. Even if this is the only documented claim of notability, it appears to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. There has been some additional sourcing added by Jayjg, but the sources appear to be passing references as well. Overall it still seems most appropriate to delete as this appears to be a large run of the mill synagogue with no particular notability documented. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claims of notability with appropriate sources to back the claim. Alansohn (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the largest Reform synagogue in New Jersey and for attention received for the dreidel-spinning record, both of which claims are sourced. Having said that: The claim that this article should be kept because there are many other articles about Reform synagogues carries no weight -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, the article has many nonencyclopedic details, such as the biographies of every rabbi and assistant rabbi, that should be trimmed/deleted. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With 8 Keep !votes in a row, and an overwhelming consensus to keep, I for one would not be against this being snow-closed if someone saw fit, to save the community further time needlessly spent on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Orlady, have you been able to find a reliable source for the claim of largest reform synagogue in New Jersey? The current sourcing is a media release podcast from the synagogue. I, for one, would like to see such a fact be reported in a reliable secondary source, as that is the only truly notable aspect of this synagogue. The record which has been broken never seemed to garner much secondary source coverage to establish notability, and even if it did, it was a single event. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:02, 22 June 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 deleted as a copyright violation of [7]. Fram (talk) 09:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey)

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

This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps?Yotemordis (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. User:Yotemordis is blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. --Lambiam 01:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are at least 65 Conservative Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Conservative synagogues in the United States. Synagogues are not infinite in number (there probably are not more than about one thousand Conservative Judaism Temples in North America) and they are not required to have "national" fame to be notable. The nominator should note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE, WP:COMPETENCE especially by nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators as well as from seasoned Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE related discussions regarding User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) excessive deletionism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Being followed/stalked by two editors. IZAK (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK's reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra the Fairytale Detective

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

Clearly, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, the article has one primary source (its own website) and clicking on the links above here give several more (primarily news and blogs). Please try to improve articles before nominating for deletion, re WP:BEFORE. Francis Bond (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep some coverage in gnews [8]. but not a lot. would need to see more indepth coverage to be fully satisfied of keep. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main website is one primary source. Rxlxm (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, you need third party sources to establish notability not primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 21 June 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) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiadora Dior

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

BLP Prod contested with a link to a single Maxim picture and bio. Google gets a grand total of three hits, two of which are Facebook pages. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT and no coverage beyond the brief Maxim interview, which seems to be one of those irrelevant "let's talk to a random person we think is hot" pieces. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 14 June 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. The recent edits established notability and resulted in late consensus to keep. Orlady (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation M'Kor Shalom

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

It sounds like the only notability claim is that the Rabbi who founded it was notable. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete individual places of worship are not notable, this article is not referenced at all. It has no claim to fame let alone references to back it up. Move to a Judaism in x state article perhaps?Yotemordis (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. User:Yotemordis has been blocked as a sock puppet of User:Thisbites. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States. Synagogues are not infinite in number (there probably are not more than about one thousand Reform Judaism Temples in North America) and they are not required to have "national" fame to be notable. The nominator should note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, WP:CHANCE, WP:COMPETENCE especially by nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators as well as from seasoned Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE related discussions regarding User ConcernedVancouverite (talk · contribs) excessive deletionism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Being followed/stalked by two editors. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is notable because it is home to the infamous Rabbi Neulander (who has a page on here) who committed a serious crime and this was spread throughout the national news headlines (CourtTV at the time, now TruTV, CNN, etc). Article has a source, could def. add a few more and possibly expand a bit, but def. keep, along with the others (Temple Emanuel, and TBS). Notable synagogue for an affluent Jewish community. Tinton5 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability with adequate sources available about the congregation that can readily be added. Expansion is what is needed here, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Neulander. I can't find any reliable sources that give significant coverage for this building. The only notability it has is the Rabbi, and per the nominator such notability is not inherited. Give us some sources that actually cover the synagogue, then you can justify this article's existence, but other than that I'm not seeing an argument beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (other synagogues have articles, why not this one?) and a suggestion from two people that the synagogue is notable just because its founder was notable for committing a crime. -- Atama頭 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Redirect This congregation is entirely unnotable by any measure. Delete or redirect is to Neulander. Basket of Puppies 08:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Straight delete, no redirect. This article deals with Fred Neulander. The temple is not notable in and of itself, but perhaps it may someday be. It is not a logical redirect for its ex-rabbi, however. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, per Carrite. Not all places of worship will be notable, and this one appears not to be. That they had a Rabbi who is notable does not make them notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Tinton5 --Yoavd (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question, can either of you point to a policy that allows for notability of an individual to be inherited by the place that individual worked? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Izak et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I have not yet had time to wade through them, I note that this synagogue has over 100 gbooks hits, 2,000 gnews hits, and 39,000 dozen ghits. A substantial percentage of the gnews hits, nearly 800, for example, don't even mention the rabbi's name, so it does not seem that notability is only related to his being the rabbi. While not by itself a measure of notability, as we have to take a look at the refs, such widespread reflection in sources does tend to be a harbinger of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments which have been made to keep this article include, "there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States." which amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; "nominating three synagogues in a row for deletion rather than first seeking input from the articles' creators" which is not a reason to keep an article, and in fact once a questionable article has been discovered by an editor it is normal quality control practice to take a look at other articles created by that same editor to see if similar problems exists as noted in this response by an admin to the same claim [9]; "This page is notable because it is home to the infamous Rabbi Neulander (who has a page on here)" which as noted in the original nomination falls under WP:NOTINHERITED; and two keep votes which were "per" these arguments. The only argument so far which seems to be potentially legitimate is Epeefleche's comment that there are numerous ghits. But having taken a pass through some of the hits I have been unable to find any significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought you would have done a complete wp:before search prior to your nomination here, looking through all the refs. That might be a step worth considering prior to future noms; it tends to save the nominator and the community time, as it unearths evidence of notability that is not otherwise apparent in articles from time to time. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course I conducted my before due diligence, Epeefleche. I always do before any deletion nomination. I am re-iterating that with all of the additional comments nothing significant has turned up past my initial conclusion that the only claim was the inherited claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What suggested to me that you had not done a complete wp:before search was the fact that you just wrote "having taken a pass through some of the hits I have been unable to find any significant reliable source coverage". To me, that (I thought naturally) suggested that you had not taken a pass through all of the hits, as is required, and had not done so prior to your nomination. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article looks like it is better sourced and expanded. Tinton5 (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The robust coverage of this synagogue in RSs over the years clearly reflects its notability. Nom's statement that the article was not "referenced at all" served to hide the fact that there are a great number of RS references that could be reflected in the article -- and that, not what is in the article, is our standard at AfD. Only a few of those RS refs are now reflected in the article itself, but even those show that the synagogue has been mentioned in a number of RSs over the years, and at times the articles have been solely about the activities of the synagogue. Furthermore, the refs clearly deal with far more than Neulander. We have some close calls at AFD, but this IMHO is not one of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for trying to bolster the article's notability with some additional sources. But let's look at what has been added to determine if it truly establishes notability for the synagogue itself. The additions to the article include being the victim of an alleged crime in 1990, "grand jury indicted a man from Brooklyn on charges relating to his alleged theft of Torahs" which there was a single article about in a local paper, and no article confirming that the crime actually happened; a passing reference about purchasing of torahs and other assets from a bankrupt congregation; having a false bomb threat in 1997 reported in a local paper; serving food to and raising money for the homeless; and a passing mention for having purchased stained glass along with several other locations in an article about the stained glass artist. These combined do not amount to specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It not appear to be a nationally famous local organization. It does not appear to have particularly unique longevity, size of membership, or major achievements. It had notable Rabbis. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains numerous RS refs, some of them entire articles in significant RSs such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, that are devoted entirely to the synagogue and its activities. We look for notability under wp standards, and this easily surpasses them.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced. --Shuki (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work by Epeefleche in finding sources on it and documenting its history. But even without Epeefleche's work, factors that should be considered for a WP:NONPROFIT include "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals". Size of membership and prominent scandals certainly apply here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it passes WP:GNG, and for much of the same reasons as I stated that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination). Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited is so complicated, and has common-sense exceptions (for example First Lady). This is a large congregation (1,000 members today is good), it has been the subject of a major scandal, was noted for several incidents of Anti-semitism, and yes, it had a notable rabbi. The things that make a church notable probably fly in the face of the reasons that makes a secular place notable or not. ZAgain, Epeefleche has done another great job rescuing an article. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In its current state, it clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Kudos to Epeefleche. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am swayed due to Epeefleche's work, and Jayjg's argument. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:40, 22 June 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) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cable

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

This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content, except for the final sentence which makes the ridiculous claim that cables generate green electric power. The cable is a single core insulated sheathed cable: there is nothing particular special about it and the intersection with solar power is not demonstrated to be a notable topic.

Delete as nom Spinning Spark 20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 21:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is an ad.Yotemordis (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Note: Yotemordis (talk · contribs) blocked as a sock puppet. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improve I can expand the article with more references. I've deleted the last sentence. Eleanor1975 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam, no reliable sources showing that there is a notable and distinct entity termed "solar cable" --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thought was helping. Clearly wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleanor1975 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7; user above is the article creator and only contributor of substantive content. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improved and can be improved further. It's my opinion that the deletion tag be removed. Cheers Suraj T 11:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improved by Suraj and I agree this has been proven a notable topic and deletion tag should be removed. Eleanor1975 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that if the article when first posted was in the state it is in now I would not have nominated it for deletion. I have now struck my delete. It still has a lot of problems, especially the instructional tone (too many "should"s) but this can mostly be fixed by copyediting. Spinning Spark 17:21, 20 June 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) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail cable

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

This article has been created by an account whose sole purpose seems to be to add external links to pages from Eland Cables. The article is a minimal stub with no real content. There really is not a class of "rail cables" as such. Certainly there are many different kinds of cable that are made to meet the specifications of the rail industry but the same can be said of many other industries - aeronautic, automotive, medical etc. The intersection between cable classes and railways is not demonstrated to be a notable subject for an article.

Delete as nom Spinning Spark 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 21:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are much in the UK news at the moment as being a favourite target for theft, primarily because of the high price of copper. People disguise themselves as railway track workers, gain entrance to the railway line, cut a cable at both ends, roll it up and sell it for scrap. The cables are either signalling or power cables; either way, the trains are brought to a stop for hours. It's been going on for years in odd parts of the country; but recently a case near London hit the national press. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that theft of railway cable would make a notable and verifiable article. But do you believe that frequent theft of butter from market stalls would be grounds for creating a market butter article for instance? Spinning Spark 22:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being used in the rail industry is not a defining aspect of a cable. Of course, many of the cables mentioned in the article are suitable for an article, but this becomes an artificial article. As railwaying uses both electrical power and both analog and digital signaling system, I would believe nearly any type of cable would be found somewhere within railway operations. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is an ad.Yotemordis (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Note: Yotemordis (talk · contribs) blocked as a sock puppet. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I could expand the articles by detailing all the specific rail cables to give more scope which will allow to use more references. I welcome any help from the community. I chose the stub format as my understanding was that it was a sub type of article to quickly tackle small topics. But anything can be expanded if we collaborate.Eleanor1975 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant spam.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No help was provided to improve. Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleanor, I know that you're pretty new around here, so you won't know all the methods yet. Please see WP:DISCUSSAFD - rather than adding a new !vote for Delete, you should really have modified your original !vote. Also on that page it suggests that "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination", and "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator". This to me suggests that just because the article has been nominated for deletion doesn't mean that you are prohibited from editing it - on the contrary, go ahead and improve it as much as you can: the better that it becomes in the next few days, the more likely it is to be kept. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improved Created sections and added references on the cable theft issue. Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Eleanor1975Eleanor1975 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 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. CSD G4. Only because actuall good faith editors have found evidence that this is a hoax. I was half tempted to delete both the article and this AFD per WP:IAR and WP:DENY. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Wrestling

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

~~Hoax, none of the content is verifiable. Infobox seems to be based on the one of Panda Energy International. Website looks like a crude hoax. Anthem 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the nominating user proved to be a sockpuppet. No apparent reason anyway for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a hoax. The "references" in the article have nothing to do with the topic. There's no news in any of the named personnel's wiki articles or on the internet via google. The supposed website of this supposed professional organization affiliated with well-known names of current and former wrestling celebrities looks like it was made in 1995 by a 13-year-old. The wikilinks to "PSW Championship" goes to the WWE Championship. The originator goes by the name "Sock48", for booting up cold. Do you need more reasons? - Salamurai (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. References don't verify the article, and there aren't even any Google hits for "PlayStation Wresting" AND "Chris McMahon". The nominator being a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user is a pity, but speedy keep isn't an option now. Fences&Windows 11:58, 19 June 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) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instigatorzine

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

This magazine does not appear to be notable. I declined an A7 speedy as it was not merely a website. I prodded the article, but that has been challenged by the article creator (one of the magazine creators?) on the basis of notable writers included within the magazine. I am not seeing WP:RS about the magazine though, to establish WP:notability. LadyofShalott 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only external source (has been given after the nomination) is their local student newspaper. No other sources found, besides WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Fails WP:NOTE. Creating the article three times (1xG12, 1xG11) with using two different user accounts also doesn't make the author more serious.[10] --Ben Ben (talk) 19:35, 14 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Lobella

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I've searched for sources to verify his appearances for Gimnàstic but couldn't find anything. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; this comprehensive website confirms that Lobella's "apppearances" for Gimnàstic are a figment of somebody's imagination... Giant Snowman 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; According to ZeroZero Football, Lobella didn't even have a number for either of these teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedintm (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, his appearances for Gimnastic appear to be a fabrication. As such, he fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 19 June 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 nom. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kontakion For You Departed

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

Book fails Wikipedia:Notability_(books) and WP:GNG. Could not find significant sources for it on a google search or any reviews other than user-generated reviews on commercial websites such as Amazon. Withdrawn per Arxiloxos v/r - T P 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable work by a major author, perhaps better known in North America under the title For You Departed; GBooks reveals substantial coverage and references (much of it, unfortunately, in snippets)[11][12] such as [13][14][15] [16][17] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:37, 13 June 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. Discussion concerning a potential merge or redirect should continue at the talk pages of the relevant articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Eritrean eruption

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

(UPDATED) Since my nomination for deletion, it has become clear that it is the Nabro Volcano which is erupting. Nonetheless, the Nabro wiki has more than enough room to deal with this event. While there is some effect on aviation, it is limited for now. Michael5046 (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is more informtion supporting the eruption being at the Nabro volcano than the Dubbi. Further this event is receiving little main stream media attention as it is, and deserves some recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestaltdude11 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is not even known where the eruption is shows that it does not warrant a "disaster" page at this time. Maybe at some point, but for now it does not appear to be a major event. Even if it is the first eruption in hundreds of years, it can just be added to the volcano page since they are already short and the eruption is for now not having any significant impact. Michael5046 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it more than 6 hours before you delete it... Jesus. Find something better to do with your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.36.196 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to jump to create a special wiki for an event unless it is certain that this is a major volcanic event. Maybe next time wait 6 hours before creating it instead to get a clearer picture? Michael5046 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the eruption seems to have a decent amount of coverage reuters has it here EdwardLane (talk)

Merge with Nabro Volcano. Although media are claiming it's Dubbi, satellite imagery superimposed on clear maps depict that the Nabro Volcano is erupting while Dubbi is free of clouds. Regardless, this page isn't necessary as all the needed information can be soundly placed within the Nabro article (which has more than enough room to spare for info on the eruption). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed merge. With either Dubbi or Nabro but only after we have reliable sources confirming which volcano it is. Until then this article is useful. Rmhermen (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or future merge, as initial author. This eruption specifically has already affected air travel to some extent (especially in the Middle East region), as with Grimsvotn or Puyehue. Another point of notability is that if it is the Nabro volcano, then this volcano has not erupted in recorded history, and some sources are speculating on possible effects on climate. Evacuations have been ordered in the area, and since most sources now indicate that the eruption occurred at Nabro, the speculation is now generally irrelevant but I'd encourage more discussion. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is already disrupting flights all over the Middle East.--Jetstreamer (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for that? How many flights have been disrupted? 1? 2? 3? 10? This is in no way similar to the volcanic eruptions in Iceland or Chile. Michael5046 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling the eruption or reading the article on the volcano would have provided you with a source. --Banana (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source if you make a claim. I can only find reports about some/several flights being affected in a small part of East Africa. "All over the Middle East" sounds like hundreds or thousands of flights are being canceled while it is far, far from that.Michael5046 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many flights are canceled, the eruption article is unnecessary as the main article for the volcano has little content in it that would force a sub-article to be made. There is clearly enough room to have the entirety of the 2011 eruption on Nabro's page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in knowing that US Secy. of State Hillary Clinton actually had to change her travel plans in Ethiopia due to this eruption. Raymie (t • c) 18:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, wide ranging effects and disruptions. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Although this volcano has caused some minor to moderate disruption it is not as significant as other eruptions that have occurred this year such as the eruptions of Grímsvötn and Puyehue-Cordón Caulle. I think that a large section on the Nabro Volcano article is maybe more appropriate for this event. Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:42am, 16 June 2011 (US Central Time)

Merge, keeping 2011 Eritrean eruption as a redirect to Nabro Volcano#2011 eruption. Even if a separate article is deemed to be needed, now that we know which volcano blew, it needs to be renamed to 2011 Nabro eruption or 2011 eruption of Nabro depending upon which form of the title WikiProject Volcanoes prefers. Carolina wren (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - very little information on the web on the subject, hopefully can get more updates on it's effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.111.243 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to change my mind to 'merge with nabro' but since I saw multiple eruptions in different connected eruptions - I think I'll stick with my original opinion that it's probably best to keep the article. Incidentally 7 now reported dead, 3 missing, by eritrean government due to eruption.EdwardLane (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is better off to be renamed 2011 eruption of Nabro. Volcanoguy 12:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sheer number of references establishes that this is indeed a very notable event. Marcus Qwertyus 19:10, 22 June 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) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam El Termanini

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

I cannot find sufficient RS support for this person's notability. Tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I can't find anything, anything at all on this person. There isn't enough to indicate that he's important enough to have a Wikipedia page. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:46, 16 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights

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

It is completely unnecessary to have separate article for every article of the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be justified on either notability or size grounds. This one is particularly bad as Article 1 isn't a substantive provision. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AJB.DeleteFair enough, Article one doesn't give any substantive rights (and there is nothing really which needs to be said or has been said about it), but I disagree about many of the others which all have a substantial amount of associated case law and discourse (for starters, pretty much every undergraduate textbook on human rights law in Europe has a chapter devoted to each). The Article articles need (a lot of) TLC yes, but they certainly meet GNG. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is entirely justifiable to have an article on every article of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its certainly justifiable on notability grounds, because the interpretation, study and is a serious academic subject within the law. Article 1 is admittedly one of the less significant provisions, but it is a topic of legal interest because its scope and effect has been challenged numerous times and because it defines the jurisdiction and territorial effects of the court/treaty, any introductory textbook to the convention would include a section on those cases that have raised Article 1 issues, and we should do likewise. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list any case law that discusses article one? I'm not really aware of any but if your right then there could be an article here. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a case list of cases that discuss article 1 to the article, I'll try to write summaries of them later tonight. In the mean time its pretty easy to find significant academic discussion of Article 1 using google books / scholar - e.g here, here,Ajbpearce (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow okay, Mowbray devotes twice as much space to Article 1 as he does to 4 and we have a handful of cases discussing jurisdiction. I think I might be convinced, although I deserve a trout for having been silly enough to think that a provision involving the word 'jurisdiction' would slip by without mention. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My main objection over this article is that of duplication. There's plenty of space at the Convention article to cover what this article discusses and having it as a separate article makes updating Wikipedia unnecessarily tiresome. Were there to be space concerns in the future the article could always be re-created. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:53, 19 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crower six stroke

Crower_six_stroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Article is about an engine that at this point is no more than someone's garage experiment. The fact that said someone gave an interview to the newsmedia 5 years ago does not make it notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Patent application was applied for. Was abandoned. At least a dozen prior claimants on the idea, most notably Dyer in 1915 and most recently Singh with two patents. Prior deletion discussion centered on existence of patent, which will never transpire. Dlw20070716 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right now, this is just a non-notable unconfirmed claim. Beagel (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. Beagel (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search for "Bruce Crower" "six stroke" engine suggests it was a minor news bubble in 2006. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found no coverage in Google Books, and only a brief mention in an Indian tech report [18] [19]. Seem to be more hype than reality. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Vandenberg. Wizard191 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 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 keep, under criterion 1: No workable rationale for deletion has been presented. Original AfD tagger was an IP, but that IP did not leave a rationale for deletion anywhere that I could find. No prejudice against re-nomination with a valid rationale. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gather.com

Gather.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I don't believe this page should be deleted because it is notable, has verified sources and is still fully operational. Thank you. NCSS (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OCID

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

Non-notable term with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiamut^talk 18:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism not discussed by reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Markowitz and Tiamut. Poyani (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly it exists, but it just as clearly fails WP:NEO. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Markowitz and Tiamut. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete granted, I wrote this article but agree with the deletion on the basis of WP:NEO. I do, however, want to inject further discussion. Whilst the specific term "obsessive compulsive israel disorder" could be described as a Neologism, the discussion surrounding the "obsession" or otherwise with Israel is a widely discussed topic. I cannot find any wiki article or sub-article on this. Maybe someone can point to where.--Halma10 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only footnote links to a media term. It has nothing to do with a culture bound syndrome. And social phenomena such as media coverage do not use medical terminology.Curb Chain (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know of culture ~~bond~~bound disorders, but since it has not references, I have to say this needs to goCurb Chain (talk) 12:31, 20 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge of the Tree

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

This page was nominated for deletion in 2008 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pledge of the Tree). It was kept because a number of people claimed that references for it existed. 3 years on and not one of those people have bothered to add any refs; the article remains utterly bare of any form of sourcing. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid criterion for deletion. The same sources, such as [20], are still available, just like last time, had you complied with WP:BEFORE, item 4. Before claiming that the source I just cited is the only reference available, you should note that your "no sources" claim has already been disproved, and should research whether other paper references can be found at a university library. Chester Markel (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you have to revert a proposed deletion template back onto an article[21], it evidently isn't the sort of uncontroversial situation that WP:PROD is designed to handle. Chester Markel (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've had 3 years, and so has everyone else. There were no sources then. There are no sources now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just cited a source above. So your "no sources" claim is totally bogus. Chester Markel (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claim is that the article has no sources, and has had none for 3 years (well, forever really). That claim is still true. Why not falsify it, if you can? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete unless someone else fixes the article" isn't policy, for obvious reasons. I refuse to support a dichotomy between editors obliged to do all of the work on articles, and deletionists who threaten to destroy articles unless the work is done. Non-BLP articles only get deleted when the topic isn't notable or isn't verifiable, or the article is completely useless. Chester Markel (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the reference Chester Markel notes is added to article page is there any reason to delete?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no longer hypothetical, since I've added the reference[22]. Perhaps Mr. Connolley can explain whether there's any reason for deletion, other than that he couldn't be bothered to source the article himself. Chester Markel (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps he could insist that the article be deleted unless every bit of text that isn't directly supported by the reference is removed from the article, before the end of the AFD... This behavior doesn't comport with the expectations of AFD nominators in the slightest. Chester Markel (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the article now has three references[23]. Can't AFD nominators be bothered to do a few minutes of research first? Chester Markel (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article has two refs, because one of your refs was worthless and has already been removed [24]. Can't you be bothered to do a few minutes research before adding refs? And it really only has one, because another - [25] - is completely useless and amounts to nothing more than a use of the phrase. Your one remaining ref - [26] - is just barely worth something; but it certainly isn't a source for the article, merely the phrase. Oh, and leave out the "Mr" nonsense, please William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why editors are sometimes unwilling to add references directly to articles during AFD: supporters of deletion often find some reason to remove them. It's so much easier to throw out "one of your refs was worthless" and similar proofs by assertion than actually explaining your position. Chester Markel (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a couple of passing mentions in two late 19th Century books isn't convincing me of notability.--Scott Mac 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Slate magazine reference also indicates that a modern reliable source, certainly no friend of Islam, has recognized this particular feature of the faith. Chester Markel (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see that reference on the article. Where is it? Does it suggest the concept is notable?--Scott Mac 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because there aren't a lot of online sources in English doesn't necessarily mean this topic is notable. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to find print sources or sources in Arabic. Has anyone contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam or Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages for help? Given this is about the founder of one of the world's most popular religions, I doubt that such souces can't be found. BTW, if you believe Google search results, here's another source from the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, an academic journal published by the University of Chicago Press.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever to me. We need a) verification and b) an indication that this meets the GNG. We have currently neither. An assertion that verification MIGHT exist, isn't good enough. It also might not. Sure, if print sources actually exist, then the lack of on-line ones wouldn't be an issue. But do they? The article you cite (from 1942) doesn't seem to help me at all. Does it have any more than a passing mention? I can't access it, but if you can indicate what discussion it has on the topic, that might help us. Gesturing that sources "might be out there" - and faith statement about what you don't doubt, doesn't help me either. Where's the evidence of notability? I am willing to be convinced here.--Scott Mac 21:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, this reminds me a lot of an AfD from last week where I made similar argument.[28] Just because something may not be notable in English doesn't mean it's not notable. Have you checked for any Arabic sources, Scott? WP:PRESERVE says we should retain encyclopedic content (which appears to be the case here). We don't have deadlines so the appropriate thing to do here is to add a {Refimprove} template to the article and move on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't keep articles we can't verify because maybe, possibly, hypothetically, we might be able to verify them later. It is logically impossible to prove something can't be verified anyway. So you can't have an "evidence of absence" here. Unless there are sources to indicate this is verifiable and notable then by policy it must be deleted. You need to demonstrate that this is "encyclopedic content" before we decide to retain it - and you need evidence to do that. "It appears" "you believe" "maybe" do not constitute evidence. An article doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't even have to be good, but it does have to have clear evidence of verifiability and notability. Now, does that evidence exist?--Scott Mac 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is how Wikipedia works. We have a huge backlogs of articles and content that lack cites and we don't delete them without a good reason. Articles which can be fixed through the normal editing process should not be deleted. I have 2 questions for you: Do you speak Arabic? Have you gone to any Arabic university libraries to check for printed sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that most Wikipedians can't read arabic is not relevant, since no one has produced any Arabic sources and asserted that these indicate notability. Had they done that, you might have a point. But, to quote the WP:GNG "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I'd say time has passed. Now, do you have sources to indicate notability (in whatever language you like)?--Scott Mac 23:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently are having difficulty understanding what is being said here. No Arabic sources have been found because none of us (apparently) speak Arabic. Do you understand that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recall WP:BEFORE, item 4, Scott. While proof of the absence of sources is impossible, the AFD nominator must be willing to assert in good faith that he made a reasonable effort to find sources, and note any that he did find, if he feels that the available references are insufficient. Connolley didn't do that. He simply started an AFD nomination asserting the total absence of sources. When a source was provided, he insisted that it had to be added to the article. When I added that and other sources to the article, Connolley claimed that the level of coverage wasn't sufficient, and that two of the references, including the source I initially presented, shouldn't have been added at all. The problem here is a continual moving of the goal posts by an editor simply unwilling to comply with the deletion policy. If Connolley wanted to assert that the obviously available sources weren't adequate, then he should have started from that position, after performing the pre-nomination research which the deletion policy requires. Chester Markel (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too interested in your quarrel with the nominator, who I've no interest in defending. However, there is simply no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources being presented here. That's what matters. Point me to the evidence - the rest is just personality stuff. Let's keep this objective.--Scott Mac 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment below, the fact that WP:BEFORE wasn't meaningfully satisfied implies that if there were sources for this topic in Arabic, we wouldn't have found them, because no one fluent in Arabic and familiar with the Qur'an ever tried. There is actually no shortage of such editors associated with the relevant wikiproject. Contacting them first might have prevented this situation. Chester Markel (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources; WP:GNG Chzz ► 00:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably, WP:BEFORE, item 4, requires a good-faith effort to find sources by an editor having sufficient competency to find references, should they be available. For this subject, that would imply fluency in Arabic and familiarity with secondary sources on the Qur'an. That obviously hasn't been done. Chester Markel (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguably. But requiring people to read Arabic BEFORE they nominate something is silly. Anyway, I'm uninterested in that. If sources can be produced before this nomination closes, fine. If not, we delete. As with any deleted article, if sources emerge, it can be recreated. If those defending this demonstrated that sources existed, rather than throwing brickbats at the nom, then we'd all do better.--Scott Mac 00:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, a request for assistance at the Islam wikiproject has now been posted[29]. I would ask that editors refrain from pile-on in favor of deletion until there has been a reasonable opportunity for a response. If, ultimately, no better sources are forthcoming, then obviously the article will be deleted, if my sources are deemed inadequate. Chester Markel (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz: Do you speak Arabic? If not, how do you know that there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. Notability has been challenged. The onus is on you to give some reasoned and evidence-based defence of it. We don't keep things because no-one can read language x, and hypothetically if someone could, then evidence MIGHT sometime emerge.--Scott Mac 07:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is getting tiresome. Mohammed was probably the most influential person ever in the Arab world. That someone would write about his life doesn't seem like much of a stretch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, I think we have an article on the Muhammad, indeed several. That doesn't show that every phrase used in relation to him, and every oath sworn to him, is notable enough for a separate article. Your attempts to circumvent the needs for evidence by irrelevant argument and vague hand-waving, are solidly unconvincing.--Scott Mac 12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at some Arabic sources Google produces 11,500 results[30] for "بيعة الشجرة", which, according to the article, is one Arabic name for the topic. Translated literally, "بيعة الشجرة" means "allegiance tree"[31]. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that this is on the right track. Chester Markel (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Utterly useless because, for all you know, "بيعة الشجرة" could also be the name of a popular Iranian pop-star. G-hits on a term prove absolutely nothing. What we need is evidence not hope, and belief.--Scott Mac 01:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted these results to assist other editors with further research, not as proof of notability. The difficulty I'm having isn't reading them, since I can use Google's translation, but determining what, if any, meets WP:RS. Chester Markel (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I finally got around to reading the full article last night and I have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous AfDs I've seen in a while. No admin with half a brain is going to delete an article about world history just because most of the online sources aren't in English. This AfD (and the arguments supporting it) seem pointy. Until someone comes up with a legitimate reason to delete the article, I'm dropping out of the discussion. If, for some strange reason, the article is deleted, I'll see you all at Wikipedia:Deletion review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you demonstrate that there are reliable sources in any other language? Doing so would be far more useful than the huffing, puffing and threats. So far all we have is your assertions and "it must be" conclusions. We work on evidence, verifiability, and reliable sources here. Nothing else counts.--Scott Mac 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wasn't to post again in this discussion, but I happened to find this book published in 1914 by Frederick A Stokes Company that has significant coverage of this article's topic.[website which has become malicious] Can we please withdraw this AfD? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic Wiki article associated with this [32] also lacks adequate sourcing, and interestingly mentions no tree whatsoever.--Scott Mac 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The Encyclopedia of Islam has an article on the subject -- see "Bayʿat al-Riḍwān" (Supplement, 2nd edition, by W. M. Watt), which mentions that this event is also known as "the pledge of the tree". And there are plenty of Google Books results, here and here. This should be more than enough to keep the article. ~~I'd also suggest a rename to the "Pledge under the tree".~~ Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At last! A credible source. Much better. Which of the books mentioned in Google books are reliable and give more than passing mention to this?--Scott Mac 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you haven't withdrawn your "delete" opinion, Scott. Now, even though better reliable sources have been presented, we still have to continue this AFD, possibly for weeks. How does this benefit the project? Chester Markel (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SM, most of these sources should be reliable, as long as they reflect what is mentioned by early historians. There are also a number of accounts in Al-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, and other sources, suggesting that the pledge wasn't the Prophet's idea, and wasn't about "avenging Uthman's death" (Watt also speculates about this). So there is plenty of interesting and conflicting material that needs to be summarized in the article. Also, writers of early biographical dictionaries used this pledge to determine the time of conversion to Islam of those present, which makes it historically notable. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, you've convinced me. Thanks.--Scott Mac 22:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet, you refuse to cross out your "delete" comment. Now, an administrator glancing through the bolded portions of this AFD is likely to relist it. What legitimate purpose does maintaining your "delete" comment, even now, serve? Chester Markel (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The notability of this article is unquestionable, holding an important incidence in Islamic history. I admit that the current condition of the article holds many inaccurate details, but that's what tagging is for. Yes, the article needs attention; but the discussion of references should be made before the AfD not after, especially when it was nominated with "Never mind, we'll have a waste-of-time AFD instead, how very useful" in the summary (because editors were disagreeing on the tagging).

To get to the point. Most issues were discussed above, but I see that what makes finding references very challenging is the name of the incidence itself. I can list, at least, 50 different names used for this incidence in English. The translation is really challenging, and anyone can check in any Arabic-English dictionary of the different meanings. It would be fruitful to keep this article for the last chance for improvement, and I'll bring a couple English books from famous scholarly publishers (on my next visit to the Middle-East). ~ AdvertAdam^talk 05:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The notability of this article was not "unquestionable". It may well be that the subject is extremely notable, indeed it now looks like it might be. However, an article with no proper references, and none supplied after three years, except when questioned a couple of name checks in two 19th century sources, is a perfectly legitimate article to question. The point of an afd is to discuss those questions, and that discussion shows that something is notable and can be sources does not make the nomination illegitimate at all. Unfortunately, people have engaged in shouting at the nom, and asserting notability without evidence, rather than addressing the issues. Maybe WP:BEFORE needs to add "BEFORE you shout 'this is notable' and 'you are wrong' provide some flipping evidence". AFD is not "votes for deletion", it is articles for discussion - the discussion aimed at establishing whether or not it meets the inclusion criterion. So, as far as I see it, this discussion is entirely satisfactory and does not merit the rage and accusations that some have brought to it. Those have no place in a fruitful discussion.--Scott Mac 08:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD is not a process which is started any time an editor believes a subject might not be notable. WP:BEFORE clearly states that the nominator must make a good faith effort to find sources prior to bringing the article to AFD. Many editors are unhappy with Connolley's nomination because he didn't bother with the pre-nomination procedure, preferring to foist the work onto someone else.
  - For articles that actually should be retained, AFD can be a disruptive, time-wasting procedure. Exactly how much effort are most editors going to be willing to expend on improving an article when it has a "This article is being considered for deletion" banner hanging over it? Do most users enjoy the salient prospect of their work going up in smoke? Chester Markel (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Scott for not making myself clear enough, but you totally misunderstood my point. I meant that the article's notability is unquestionable in Islamic traditions, considering it an important historical incident. I explained that the difficulty of finding sources is caused by different spelling and translation. So if you're encouraging for a deletion, fine; I'll add the article again when I get reliable English sources from the Middle-East. You ignored the second part of my comment, and considered me unwelcome because of a misunderstanding in the first sentence? Chester expanded my point about the nomination, as a heated 2-day source-argument led to an AfD instead of a talkpage discussion. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. For the avoidance of doubt, now that sources have been provided, I am not arguing for deletion.--Scott Mac 09:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep details of the article may still need to be worked on, but looks like enough sources have been mentioned to support notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a lot of work (may be we can start by first stubbing it). But, there are sources and this term is notable. » nafSadh did say 14:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The title phrase gets 8 GScholar hits, which is borderline at best, but over 200 GBooks hits. Most of the GBooks appear to be to older volumes, indicating that this phrase may not be a common contemporary usage (and might also explain the lack of online sourcing). But notability is not temporary, and terms used by more-or-less scholarly writers one hundred to one hundred fifty years ago certainly merit encyclopedic notice. There could be a suitable merge target out there, but I didn't see one on a quick review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been adequately demonstrated. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 June 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 Speedily deleted (CSD G5: Creations by banned or blocked users) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Diana Vickers Album

It fails WP:NALBUMS for no release date, no tracklisting and no title confirmed. Way too early to have a page. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and shouldn't be created until at least a title, tracklisting, and release date are confirmed. –anemone projectors– 16:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUM--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Speedy delete per below reason.[reply]
Comment I note that the article was created by a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user in violation of their block. Does this now therefore qualify for speedy delete WP:CSD#G5? –anemone projectors– 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 17:35, 14 June 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 Resident Evil (film series)#Future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil: Retribution

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

Chiefly unreferenced. Even parts of the article which reference a source fail verification. Also fails notability mandates required by Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films. Generally speaking, I and some other people in the article talk page believe this title is a rumor entirely. Fleet Command (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Resident Evil (film series)#Future. Not verifiable that filming has started per notability guidelines for future films. If we can verify the start of filming, we can recreate a lasting article. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Erik. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 14 June 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) 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Erik. This is a pretty clear-cut case of WP:NFF. As we don't have that much info and shooting hasn't started, we shouldn't have the standalone article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:44, 20 June 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 CBD 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Xros Wars characters

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

No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources. Content is just OR plot. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with every other TV show character list I've seen recently at AFD, this one asks the wrong questions. Obviously a necessary part of any coverage of a notable TV series is a summary description of its characters. So the only relevant question is whether the content, if excessive detail is trimmed, is too large to fit into the parent article at Digimon Xros Wars such that a standalone list is necessary. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in Camp Lazlo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ONe thing you need for that are independent reliable sources, otherwise you just have some editor sitting down one afternoon writing down some opinions and thoughts about characters (i.e., OR). I don't see good independent RS, so this fails WP:V as well as WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A work of fiction is a reliable source for its own contents, as are fan guides authored or licensed by the work's creators, even though none of those would be considered independent. They can be relied upon for simple, uncontroversial descriptions of the fiction. For example, "Han Solo is a smuggler and freighter pilot hired by Ben and Luke" is easily verifiable from Star Wars itself; "Han Solo is a handsome rogue, seemingly selfish but with a heart of gold" dips into subjective interpretation and so would require express attribution to a source commenting on Star Wars. OR does not prohibit your own reliance on primary sources such as the work of fiction you are describing; it prohibits original statements that are not verifiable by reliable sources regardless of whether those sources are primary or secondary.
Independence of the source is much less of an issue in this context as well (once you've already determined that the work is notable through independent sources), particularly since in most cases the work's own authors are going to be the most authoritative about its contents and intent. For example, you do not need to cite to the independent critic Roger Ebert for the fact that Han Solo is a character in Star Wars, or that Harrison Ford played him (and it would be silly to do so); this is easily verifiable from the film itself, or any number of official Star Wars books. As long as you're not relying on such primary sources for POV self-promotional statements, such as "Han Solo is the greatest film character ever." postdlf (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - excessively detailed plot only coverage of non-notable characters. --Anthem 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. —Farix (t | c) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable spin-out list that gives some depth to each character's roll in the plot of the work without causing the main article to lose its focus. While there are a lot of incidental characters on the list, which I've tired to remove with no success, that is not a reason for deletion. Thankfully, none of the individual character descriptions are overly detail. Original research issues should be addressed individually. —Farix (t | c) 18:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid spin off article for a list of characters of a series, Orginal research can always be removed, and references have been slowly added here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps it should be trimmed down to focus only on the main groups and any notable supporting characters. Evilgidgit (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. We have worked so hard on it and it has served as a good character page for this show's characters. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to point out that the previous five Digimon seasons all have character lists, and all of their major characters have their own articles. Why are all character articles for Xros Wars being deleted? Evilgidgit (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are twm possibilities. One, the characters from the other season have gotten move coverage therefore meet the notability guidelines. Two, Digimon articles have only recently received attention and the character articles for the other seasons should be merged and or deleted as well.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The list is a plot-only description of a fictional work and the references used to generate the content are primary sources, so there is no evidence that as a stand-alone article it meets the general notability guideline. As the article falls into what Wikipedia is not by being plot-only, it is not suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. The list itself is an unnecessary split of Digimon Xros Wars, which has an article size of 27.4 KB, which means it's below the recommended article size, the only reason that I see to justify a split of plot-only content. As the majority of the content in the list is not even referenced and that which is relies on primary sources and apparently original research by synthesis in some points, and also gives undue weight to minor characters, I don't see a good reason to merge the content into the main article, which already covers the main characters, more than enough given the current sources. Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid, substantial list and per everyone else. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 00:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this valid spin-out list per Farix and Rtkat3's reasonings.. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:37, 22 June 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. Delete all. I'm a little surprised that the two deposits articles wern't discussed much, so I'd be open to a good argument to restore one or both of them and rerun the AFD on those, but there's a consensus that all three articles should be deleted here. Courcelles 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf Mining

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

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

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

Article is almost entirely sourced to press releases. Searching GNews indicated that most coverage seemed to be sourced from the same press releases. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A small company quoted on the London Alternative Investment Market. I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources - all I can find is stuff like company news releases, stock quotes, mentions on investment forums, etc. And the article has been built by the same person who has recently been misrepresenting company news releases as being more factual/positive than they really are -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, potentially speedy under CSD:G11. No significant coverage outside corporate press releases. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered G11, but thought we could do with a week to see if reliable sources would turn up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added Kallak Iron Deposit and Ruoutevare Iron Deposit, which were both created by the same author and are sourced by the same company news releases - after having removed more over-glowing material from Beowulf Mining, this is looking increasingly like an attempt to big up a non-notable company -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I redirected Kallak mine to Kallak Iron Deposit -- if KID is deleted, Km should be reverted to the version before User:Badricks's edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please point out that the information in both the 'Kallak Mine' and 'Ruoutevare mine' articles is wrong and misleading and given that some of the complaints at this article are on just that surely it makes sense to delete those too, should these pages be deleted? There is also this sorry article regarding a Beowulf property - Munka Mine. All 3 are flawed and full of errors - Why would a Molybdenum mine produce Iron? And I don't think you can call something a mine unless it is/has been mined.

Badricks (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beowulf and merge the others and rewrite. Beowulf is listed on the London /stock /exchange. listing on major exchanges is a sufficient criterion. There are 2 non-spam references in Reuters [33] [34] and confirmed in Forbes [35]. The articles on the iron deposits can be best merged if there are no articles talking about them in any other context; but if anyone can find sources talking about them in other contexts, then they should be separate articles also, That an article has PR references is reason to find better, not to delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed on AIM, not the main LSE, which is not usually considered a major exchange -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two Reuters sources are just run-of-the-mill reports of the company's own news and a rise in the share price, which Reuters carries about any quoted company that puts out a release, and the Forbes one is just a roundup of small cap share price moves. There is no significant coverage there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence: in notability terms, I think Beowulf actually passes WP:CORP, since there's substantial coverage in sources such as MJ and E&MJ. I'm less interested in more project-specific criteria such as "is it listed on a certain exchange", since those criteria vary considerably from the GNG and inevitably cause drama. However, if the article has been used primarily for promotion, then I'd happily step aside and let it be deleted (without prejudice to somebody coming back later and writing a wholly neutral, policy-compliant article from scratch). bear in mind that it's very hard to write an article describing a business without somebody thinking that the description is promotional. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd offer to rescue it myself and do a complete rewrite from independent sources, but I don't have spare time at the moment. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the solution to promotional content is editing. Deletion and rewriting is usually necessary only for libel and copyvio. I point out that this deletion request, apparently instigated by an anonymous editor admitting to using a range of ip addresses, has had publicity at AN/I This can be as much negative promotion as the article was positive. This discussion might be playing into the hands of speculators in whatever direction, and quiet editing would have been much more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment Hi I am 'Badricks' the author of most of the content here. I am fairly new to wikipedia and all of this, but I will do my best to answer the criticisms levelled at this article. I've put my response in the order points appear on the talk page.

- References - The bulk, possibly all, of the references are from 'Investegate' which supplies RNS news releases. There has been coverage on/in Reuters, Forbes, Bloomberg, The Guardian, The FT, Proactive investors and others including in Swedish newspapers and websites. If referencing is an issue it wouldn't be hard to broaden the reference base. I am happy to invest time digging out other references if this helps.

- Promotional content - I have tried to keep the article neutral, however this is obviously quite difficult as was pointed out. I have avoided using purely speculative figures for tonnage and grades and only used numbers where data allows an estimate with a reasonable degree of confidence.

- I feel the article is decent, if a little jagged around the edges, and shouldn't be deleted. If you want to put any questions or comments to me please feel free. ( talk ) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The alternative stock exchange listing is not sufficient to show notability. Mining exploration is an industry notorious for fabulous claims and puffery. An article last month in the NY Times Magazine [36] is a profile on a gold prospector in the Yukon which touched upon how the industry is set up, here's a short excerpt:

"...how the exploration industry worked on a global scale. A handful of companies — “majors” — run the active mines and control the worldwide market. Majors are listed on the big stock exchanges, and they have nondescript names: BHP Billiton, Vale, Barrick, Rio Tinto. Meanwhile, thousands of smaller exploration companies — “juniors” — raise funds and chase ideas. Juniors are essential to the majors because they do much of the initial work in the exploration industry: sampling the soil, digging trenches, publicizing promising geological results. Publicity is key, because juniors raise money by selling their shares on penny-stock markets, like the TSX Venture Exchange in Toronto. Every hopeful glimmer can cause shares to rise, and when shares are under $1, a jump of a few pennies is a handsome return. Juniors are free to have aggressive names: Monster Mining, Bling Capital, Northern Tiger. They are striving to be noticed.

At the very bottom of this opaque and volatile market are mining claims like the ones Ryan was staking when he walked around the bush near Dawson, pounding wooden four-by-fours into the earth, sometimes attached to a steel rod if the ground was too hard penetrate. These stakes gave him an exclusive right to extract minerals. But if he didn’t work on the claim, or pay an additional fee, his rights would expire over time. Typically, prospectors support themselves by optioning claims to juniors in exchange for yearly cash payments and thousands of shares of penny stock."

The Reuters articles that DGG cites to are exactly the sort of claim puffery you expect to see, as Beowulf seems to be a "junior". But without knowledge of this industry, I can see why someone might think the subject is notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per WP:CORP. No significant coverage outside corporate press releases - coverage by the news organisation and industry magazines mentioned are merely barely concealed copies of the companies press releases - more news aggregation than journalism. 213.246.88.203 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the time that this article was allowed to exist with misinformation as part of a ramping campaign, Wikipedia has demonstrated that it is unable to effectively police itself. 213.246.88.203 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 months? call the wahmbulance, Mr. IP. I'll find you 8 year old shitty articles if you really care. But you don't, because no one looks at them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage There has been news coverage in Sweden recently [37] [38]. Today Beowulf Mining is most definitely a junior, there is no doubt there. So at what point is it permissible for an AIM listed company to have a Wikipedia page? Beowulf have discovered what initial drilling results suggest is an enormous ore body. Should therefore any article discussing this (the Kallak deposit) be deleted/deferred until such time that these results can be confirmed or at least estimated to an international standard? Regardless, Beowulf still exists as a company so why would the entire wiki page be forfeit? Ruoutevare and Ballek/Lulepotten both possess JORC compliant inferred resource estimates so I don't see why these would be considered for deletion. badricks (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and more news in English and from Reuters here [39]. Not just a rewritten press release, but actual journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badricks (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badricks, you seem really invested in this subject! (pun intended??)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that - I'm not affiliated or employed by the company but I do hold stock here. If it were my intention to 'ramp' the share by creating a wikipedia page I've obviously failed pretty miserably if check the share price [40]. I found the whole company and its area of business interesting and I'd always fancied making a wikipedia page so I thought - why not. Given this long discussion and the fact that those in the know all seem to be touting for deletion, I kind of wish I'd invested (pun intended) my time in something else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badricks (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Reuters story is only reporting on a news release from the company itself - Reuters does that with just about every RNS released by the LSE -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't simply an RNS rehash. Parts make reference to a news release by Beowulf however a site visit was organised with Reuters to, presumably, coincide with the news release. Quote: "...Chairman Clive Sinclair-Poulton told Reuters during a recent trip to the facility.". The article makes reference to tonnage increases that are nowhere to be found within the RNS release. I will admit that one article by Reuters does not make for a hefty flow of news, but to suggest that all news about Beowulf is aggregated from RNS feeds is equally not true. Other news sources aren't that hard to find either [41] [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badricks (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it's *just* a rehash, I meant it's a report of the company's own announcements. Yes, Reuters has added something to the RNS content, but what it has added is sourced first hand from the company itself - it's still just reporting the company's own statements, which is not really the in-depth independent coverage that WP:NCORP requires.

Delete all per Boing!, non-notable per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a serch of The Times brings up lots but they all seem to redirect to todays paper. Lots seem to be just referencing how they have been doing, but some seem to be more significant. No real reason for a all of a junior mining companies properties to have an article, especially if they are not in production, but they can be covered in the main article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as per Boing's comments and WP:CORP. - SudoGhost™ 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Boing! said. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Comment: Can we try to AGF, please? Comments like "misinformation as part of a ramping campaign", and implications that other editors are unduly influenced by a stake in the business, would be pretty severe accusations if true. I would suggest that people either present some firm evidence, or retract their accusations. bobrayner (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I believe there is a "misinformation" attempt in any way, but the IP at Talk:Beowulf Mining seems to suggest that User:Badricks is the same "Badrick" on some forum related to the company's stock. I'm not suggesting that this is true in any way, but I'm just placing this here as it seems to explain the reasoning behind the comments. - SudoGhost™ 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but what does AGF mean? And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, or assume good faith. - SudoGhost™ 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SudoGhost. There are a lot of acronyms to learn here, LOL. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this here as well for other users who might now know, but Wikipedia:Glossary helps in identifying terms used on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost™ 02:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I should have linked AGF so that the meaning would be clear to all readers. Thanks, SudoGhost, for your help. bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 15 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agumon (Data Squad)

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

No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources apart from 1 trivial mention. Article consists of OR plot only. Fails WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:Pokémon test ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pokémon test describes an outdated arguement formerly used at AFD, and doesn't provide any sort of arguement for deletion (though it does mention that many Pokemon articles were eventually merged into lists). If you think the article should be deleted, please provide a reason why you think so, rather than referring to an essay that doesn't provide any arguement for deletion. Calathan (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Digimon Data Squad characters. While the individual character may have no independent coverage, he is one of the main characters of the series and should be merged into the character list for that series. —Farix (t | c) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Digimon Data Squad characters. No independent coverage of the character, and little of this article is adequately sourced per WP:V, so a merge would be inappropriate. --Anthem 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Anthem of joy has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas. —Farix (t | c) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to lack of indication of notability. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet general notability guideline and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work that extracts the content with primary sources and original research by synthesis. As such, I do not think that a merge is warranted. A redirect is also not a good alternative due to the disambiguation in the article title. Jfgslo (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plot-only argument would violate WP:NOT and bypass a discussion of notability, but this argument has the problem that this is not a plot-only article, it is encyclopedic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Good article, not enough sourcing for Wikipedia content policy, there seems to be no basic dispute here that the character is notable: "attracts attention", and "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of direct coverage in independent secondary sources, as seen with the WP:GNG. 74.198.9.152 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 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 List_of_Digimon_Adventure_characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agumon

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

No out-of-universe context or notability, no independent sources apart from 1 trivial mention. Article consists of OR plot only. Fails WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Pokémon test. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pokémon test describes an outdated arguement formerly used at AFD, and doesn't provide any sort of arguement for deletion (though it does mention that many Pokemon articles were eventually merged into lists). If you think the article should be deleted, please provide a reason why you think so, rather than referring to an essay that doesn't provide any arguement for deletion. Calathan (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Digimon Adventure characters. While the individual character may have no independent coverage, he is one of the main characters of the series and should be merged into the character list for that series. —Farix (t | c) 20:02, 13 June 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) 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - summarize the excessive in-universe material into one paragraph. Include the merchandising info. The IGN ref is really clutching at straws. Marasmusine (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Digimon Adventure characters: The article does not provide evidence that the fictional character meets the the general notability guideline to deserve a stand-alone article. Most of the article relies on primary sources and original research by synthesis, but there are some usable parts (all that's referenced with secondary sources) that should be merged to List of Digimon Adventure characters where currently there is no description of the character. Jfgslo (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Digimon Adventure characters per above, if anything the references will help out the main character list article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 20 June 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. v/r - T P 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Lamps

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Only assertions of notability are appearances on blogs. No evidence of being on national music charts, appearing in reliable secondary sources, non-trivial coverage of a concert tour, major record labels, notability of the members, or any major music awards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The PopMatters reference [43] is better than anything I could find, and that article offers little coverage of the band itself, only identification ("indie music group Bad Lamps"), the song title ("Never Know the Difference") and a brief reaction ("I actually really like the song ... The subject matter and song lyrics match perfectly. Also, the musicians are clearly competent at what they do, and it makes you want to sing along"). Even the significant coverage (in reliable sources) for the fan-made YouTube video appears to be limited to that single article; the only other coverage I could find amounts to "Hey, check out this clip which uses SFW scenes from pornographic movies" followed by the embedded video. I'm not finding enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough sources. I searched as well for any reliable sources, but found a Facebook page and the PopMatters page. It seems this one isn't going to make the cut. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:15, 17 June 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. v/r - T P 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adhyapakar Ariyan

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

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

Contested PROD. Article by a teenage author about his novel. No indication, and searches find none, that it meets the notability requirements of WP:Notability (books). I have included an identical article under a different title. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These both appear to have been created by the author of a non-notable set of books. I have searched and not found any evidence of notability for the author or the books. The PROD was contested by the original author of the article as well, with no explanation and no improvements to the article.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:Notability (books). Salih (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Salih--Sodabottle (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all incoherent Curb Chain (talk) 12:20, 20 June 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 Queen Mary, University of London. Consensus is that there's no basis for a standalone article. Content can be merged from the history based on subsequent editorial consensus. Sandstein 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Anglo-German Cultural Relations

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

This article is about a research centre at Queen Mary University. I can find no significant coverage about this research centre to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep in that I agree there does not appear to be much coverage but is part of a big University, it maybe we are not looking in the right place. VERTott 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lots of things are part of big universities. But that doesn't mean that they are given standalone articles. Most university faculties don't end up with their own articles unless they have programs with reputations that generate the necessary coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 10:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Our editing policy indicates that deletion is inappropriate because there are better alternatives such as merger with articles about QMC or Anglo-German relations. Warden (talk)

How many people are part of this? If they've had thousands of students, then its important. If its just one small class somewhere, then it probably isn't. Size matters when comes to determining if its a major part of the university or not. Dream Focus 12:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three Google news archive are all written by the director of this center. Would he be considered a notable enough expert on a subject to publish his opinions on something, or was he chosen because of his position? The latter would indicate they consider that facility notable enough to asks someone from it to give opinions on things. Dream Focus 12:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mere 3 gnews hits and there is a lack of indepth coverage about the actual centre itself like its history, achievements etc fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only hits I can find on this source is a few mere mention of the fact that this or that academic is affiliated with it. It therefore fails "significant coverage". And no, it is third-party coverage that matters, not WP:BIGNUMBERs. It is easily possible for university programmes to have classes in the thousands, but be so blandly generic and mechanical (i) that nobody would bother commenting on them & (ii) they're indistinguishable from similar programmes in any other large university. There is no indication that the research in this field is sufficiently prominent to merit a mention in the Queen Mary, University of London article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Queen Mary, University of London. Not enough material to support a standalone page but certainly plenty enough sources to support a merge. I note that the nomination is fatally flawed since it hasn't addressed a merge as required by WP:BEFORE which is also the case with the delete !votes. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Fatally flawed?" - If I thought there was anything worth merging, I would have merged it. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 22 June 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. WP:SNOW joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development of Duke Nukem Forever

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

Article is not encyclopedic. Yes, DNF had a troubled and long development history. So have many other programs and games. I don't see why this needs a separate article on its own. Presumably the development section in the main DNF article got too long and they spun it off as its own article, but it's really not notable on its own. ScienceApe (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep—This is the main article fork from the Duke Nukem Forever article. The delays in this release are approaching legendary status, so yes it is notable in the computer gaming business. It appears to have satisfied the general notability requirements and is not tagged with any warning notices.—RJH (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Keep but consider tailoring this article better to be about all the previous attempts to release the game (eg as the king of Vaporware), leaving the actual true development of the released product in the main game article. This might require renaming the article, exactly what I'm not sure...--MASEM (t) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD not necessary. If you wanted to re-merge the article back to the main article, where all this came from, you could do that on the talk page. However, I strongly disagree that this is not notable on its own. A 15-year development cycle for a video game is highly unusual given the pace of technology change, and I think the references in the article about the industry reaction to this speak for themselves. Grand master ka 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the timing of this AfD, just as the game is being released and more people will want to read about this. Grand master ka 03:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This game's lengthy development is absolutely notable. Tons of sources exist for it, and the circumstances around the game's development are unique. You could argue that far more people know of Duke Nukem for the lengthy development time than anything else. If there's enough info to support a separate article, and there is, I see no reason why there shouldn't be one. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The developmental history is indeed notable as it is so long (by count of years). However, adding it to the main article Duke Nukem Forever would make that article way too long. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First this was a fork from the main article which isn't exactly finished yet. And second the notability has already been proven, and even then this is a game for a notably long development time so if there is to be an exception this article would be one. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This saga has been covered in more publications more times over the years than the final product ever will be. Nevard (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most famous VG vaporware; the article has tons of references. Not only innaproriate to merge to game article, due to the size, but the stand-alone notability has been established. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per super-obvious notability. This stuff could not be covered adequately in the main DNF article, and needs its own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I also agree that the development is notable. If this would be deleted, Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion might as well be deleted as well. GamerPro64 18:03, 14 June 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. v/r - T P 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Silk Road (anonymous marketplace)

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

The Silk Road just isn't notable enough to have its own article. The only references anyone has been able to provide are a Gawker blog article and a passing reference on a Guardian blog. Heck, we're still not entirely sure that it isn't just a hoax, so verifiability is another big issue here. Cyde Weys 14:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "hoax" possibility mentioned is something of a red herring – even if that were true, that a topic might be a hoax is by no means an obstacle to our having an article on it. On the face of it, this nomination seems underresearched if only two references could be found and "just isn't notable" is the rationale for deletion. A quick Google search brought up many more, which I've added to the article along with a {{rescue}} tag so that editors can assess the coverage and perhaps develop a viable article. Skomorokh 14:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between the Gawker article and all the RSs sourced using it, and the Schumer letter (and all the RSs covering that), this passed the GNG a while ago. As far as hoax goes, I take it you've never used SR or even visited it, Cyde Weys? --Gwern (contribs) 15:53 13 June 2011 (GMT)
Keep. As the largest anonymous marketplace on the web it is notable. It isn't a hoax. There is significant ongoing media coverage. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, "the largest anonymous marketplace on the web"? Surely, you have a good reference to uphold such claims, no? KLP (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest seems pretty unlikely to me. Largest using Bitcoins, probably; largest using Tor hidden sites, maybe; largest on the web, surely not, if only because of all the big carding forums. --Gwern (contribs) 17:58 13 June 2011 (GMT)

As a Tor hidden service, is it even technically on the web? KLP (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, that's a good question. On the one hand it uses web protocols, such as HTTP and HTML. On the other hand, it can only be accessed through the use of the Tor proxy, so it isn't on the interconnected network known as the "World Wide Web" (i.e. you can't just point a web browser to an IP address or a DNS hostname to reach it). But we digress. --Cyde Weys 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand, there are sites which proxy to the Tor network, so you can read-only browse a number of .onion sites, so it is on the Web in a sense beyond the landing page http://silkroadmarket.org/ --Gwern (contribs) 22:21 13 June 2011 (GMT)

Keep, but only because of the media and political attention it has received. Contributors shouldn't contribute to the article under the presumption that similar services haven't already existed for some time. KLP (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (to Bitcoin) a premature creation on the basis of three sources (one of which isn't particularly reliable) published within the last day or two -- no evidence of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A website is notable do to the coverage it gets in reliable sources, which this one has plenty of. Dream Focus 06:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with Dream Focus here that there's enough coverage in reliable sources for the notability to be established. The recentness of the coverage should not be an issue. Anthem 06:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [44]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a lot of media coverage. Also, the US government is trying to shut it down. Hum richard (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it's real or not, Schumer thinks it's real, so it deserves a Wikipedia article per WP:N. I suspect more coverage is likely in the future, just because of that. Also, The Sydney Morning Herald [45] is not a blog. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hoax; no merge as Bitcoin and SR are two different, unrelated things, albeit one happens to use the other. --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 21:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its own article. The fact that it uses a particular currency (bitcoin) doesn't mean it should be merged there. Plenty of high profile coverage is about the site itself, such as: Silk Road: Not Your Father's Amazon.com (NPR); Schumer Calls For End Of Online Illegal Drug Sales; Schumer Pushes to Shut Down Online Drug Marketplace (NBC), and more. First Light (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Coverage by NPR seals it for me, plus it's an interesting topic in terms of covering the darker side of society. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:02, 19 June 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 speedily deleted by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) per A10; redundant with Thiemassassians. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiemassassian Culture

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

Thiemassassian seems to be a new term that is not generally used. While I have found references to Thillmans. Descamps and Khayat here and other places on google scholar, none of them use the term. Thiemassassian only appears in general google searches on wikipedia and mirrors. noq (talk) 14:18, 13 June 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. v/r - T P 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umer Sharif Kakar

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

WP:N, WP:V--Unable to find any sources for this actor/director, but it's possible I'm being tripped up by a language barrier and not having a translations of his name outside of English. Some claims of potential notability if they could be verified. Additional sources welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been deleted when it was PRODed, IMHO. Non-notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of notability. I didn't get anything reliable on Google and Yahoo except for a Facebook page. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:06, 19 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shpoonkle

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

This website is relatively new and not very notable to have a Wikipedia article. Its Facebook page has less than 80 fans, so hardly anyone uses the website or even know about it or its founder. Almost all of the information in this article was added by the founder himself, User:Robgrantn, with no reliable sources. He even tried to create a Wikipedia article about himself and he is nowhere close to being notable enough for that, being just a 21-year-old law student from New York. The founder is my elementary school classmate and had the audacity of unfriending me on Facebook when I tried to help him improve the article. I know he worked hard with adding all that information, but the website is just not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time. This article belongs more on a Law or Website Wiki like this one, not an encyclopedia. This is not the place to promote a new company. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination, yet another non-notable web-based startup. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE

Objectively, a former classmate who was "unfriended" on Facebook shouldn't qualify as the person recommending deletion of an article. This seems like a malicious attack over a bruised ego rather than an unbiased review of content.

For the record, I submitted most of the content for the information on the page not Robert Niznik. If the site needs work, than I am happy to add or change what is required. The page had been approved and was growing and improving until your ego got bruised.

This 21 year old, Robert Niznik was in the Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, and the Economist. He was most recently interviewed by NBC News about the PROCESS he has employed via vie Shpoonkle. The site is about promoting advocacy and the condition of the Legal Environment today and not an advertisement. The site and service has been in over 600 renowned international publications in less than ninety days. To my knowledge the amount of fans you have on Facebook should not and is not a criteria of notability. The website has over 2000 registered users and has thousands of page visits a day which is considered substantial.

The article has citations from notable sources, its objective about the services offered, and also follows Wikipedia's guidelines. You actually wrote to Robert (see email below) telling him not to worry that the page just needed some clean up and would be fine. So because this person is no longer a Facebook friend your using your position with Wikipedia to have this article deleted? Not only is not ethical and a misuse of the fiduciary responsibilities Wikipedia has entrusted in you it is just plain wrong. The purpose of the article was not promotion of the company but to educate of a process and service that is FREE and trying to help people.

This is the message you sent Robert Niznik on June 8th 2011 at 8:25:

___________________________________________________

Winson Thai June 8 at 8:25pm Report

The article will NOT be deleted just because of the template. I put it there so you and the people who work for your company will know that it still needs a lot of work (heck, you did not even include a link to the site at the bottom of the page). Just keep improving the page and you can remove the template. No worries.

_____________________________________________________________

We made the changes you suggested and then you marked it for deletion because he didn't want to be your Facebook Friend anymore?

I am asking the Wikipedia community to help me stop people like this from using their personal agendas in this forum/site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierceenigma (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)  — Fierceenigma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who is "we" in the above sentences? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep - obnoxiously promotional article that positively reeks of COI and promotional intent; but subject matter has gotten some real-world attention. Needs a cleansing to remove the Augean stables of press releases, self-serving blather from site's founder, etc.; but none of that is reason to delete. (I have nothing printable to say about the notion of measuring notability by the number of Facebook friends a website has!!!!) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now with a comment on references: 1-Press Release, 2-WSJ article, 3-Unrelated to subject specifically, 4-Press Release, 5-Unrelated to subject specifically, 6-Unrelated to subject specifically, 7-Blog, 8-Blog, 9-Blog, 10-Same ref as #2, 11-ABA, 12-ABA, 13-mentioned in passing, 14-mentioned in passing, 15-Press Release. There are currently 15 references in the article, but the only ones that I would argue could be used to establish notability are 2, 11, and 12. Seems a bit weak, but I could see it going either way. Looking for more info before !voting myself. --Onorem ♠Dil 19:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the coverage in the Wall Street Journal and the ABA Journal is enough to meet the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. I went through and removed some of the fluff, it looks like it is fully cited now. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the 12 references as currently exist in the article:
1. "Building eBay for Lawyers"; Wall Street Journal
  - Without being able to see the whole article, this still appears to meet the criteria for a suitable source with significant coverage
2. "How Much Do Lawyers Charge?"; Lawyers.com
  - No mention of Shpoonkle - merely confirms average hourly cost for legal fees
3. "Is Law School a Losing Game?"; NY Times
  - No mention of Shpoonkle - confirms number of legal jobs lost
4. "U.S. firms outsource legal services to India"; NY Times
  - No mention of Shpoonkle - confirms outsourcing of jobs
5. "Shpoonkle By Any Other Name" Simplejustice blog
  - A blog, with a criminal defence lawyer's personal opinion. I'd be more inclined towards accepting this as a source if he had an article at Wikipedia, but there is none.
6. "The Shpoonkle-ization of a Legal Profession"; solopracticeuniversity
  - Another blog, from someone with no Wikipedia article, at a "university" with no evidence that it is notable, or that it is accedited with anywhere
7. "Thoughts On Shpoonkle"; Nontradlaw
  - A blog from a person who has no article here
8. The same as reference 1 (Wall Steet Journal)
  - See point 1
9. "As Law Student Readies Reverse Auction Site..."; ABA Journal
  - As the journal of the American Bar Association this should be a suitable source, but I notice that there is no author given (it's shown as "Intern", whereas most of the ABA Journal's articles have named authors. We have no idea what the professional status of the writer is - in theory, it could even be the creator of the Shpoonkle. Overall, I would feel uneasy using this particular article on ABAJ as a reliable, independent source
10. "More Than a Quirky Name"; ABA Journal
  - I would definitely count this as a reliable reference (a named staffer) - although only 9 of the 17 sentences are actually about Shpoonkle, leading me to wonder if it meets the "significant coverage" requirements
11. "Why BigLaw Associates Should Listen to Me"; BitterLawyer
  - A blog, with one minor mention of the subject: "As I like to say: BigLaw, meet Shpoonkle"
12. "New sites, apps that might be worth consuming"; Chicago Tribune
  - Reliable source, very minor mention: "Shpoonkle.com. Hire lawyers by reverse auction, meaning they bid for your business."

There appears to be significant coverage in one reliable source, insignificant coverage in others, and no-mentions in other sources. I do not see the significant coverage in sources (plural) as required by the notability guidelines, and so I feel I must recommend deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I combined references 1 and 8; so now 8 in the above list is missing and 9-12 are moved up. —teb728 t c 08:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I count the Wall Street Journal reference and both ABA Journal references as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The second ABAJ reference is really all about Shoonkle; even the three paragraphs about the competitor site contrast that site with Shpoonkle. I think it unlikely that the anonymous author of the first ABAJ reference is Niznik himself; at least that article doesn’t have the neutrality problem of Niznik’s friends writing here. —teb728 t c 08:41, 19 June 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. v/r - T P 16:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TiMidity++

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

Article does not attribute reliable secondary sources and does not assert any notability. (WP:V, WP:N). I could not locate any sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Comment. Isn't this the standard MIDI player that's used on Linux systems? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not installed by default, but the only software synthesizer available in Debian's repository I could find when I checked a few years ago. —Ruud 08:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The CCRMA / Fedora documentation only covers FluidSynth as far as I can tell [46], and it has also been available for a decade now. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned in a lot of books, press the "books" in the top of this page. And remember the program goes under the name "TiMidity" too (search e.g. "+Timidity +midi" to find the source). Christian75 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I can see several mentions in that list. Enough for verification. I can't see anything significant enough to justify a separate article (per WP:N). I'm open to redirection to a broader article. Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking over a few of the books pointed to by Christian, it seems TiMidity is recommended by several of them as the software synthesizer for Linux systems. In my opinion more than sufficient to establish independent notability. —Ruud
- To be fair, none of the books explicitly recommend it. The first cites Wikipedia so isn't usable; the next few mention it in passing as a free tool they happened to have used in their examples; one just lists it, and so on. As a tertiary source, our coverage should be equally trivial. Unless you can point out something particularly significant that I missed. In any event, this is no longer a deletion discussion so can be closed: we can continue this on the talk page. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books have very brief coverage of this. I can't even find one that details the kinds of synthesis this program provides. I wasn't able to find any in-depth articles on this, not even on linux.com. I don't see a reasonable target for a redirect. If this is kept, one might as well create an equally non-descript article about playmidi, which has equally shallow [cook]book coverage [47]: "such and such is a program that plays midi files on linux" (don't even bother saying what type of synthesis or instruments it provides). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell the only real use of this program was to use ripoffs of E-mu soundbanks, which were probably illegal. [48] [49]. Which is why sources about this "free" software don't bother saying much about using it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Silly speculation. I've used this for years to legally play MIDI files under Linux using the freepats soundbank. —Ruud 16:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see there are some free soundbanks which are said not to sound as good [50]. However that doesn't change the rest of my observations. It's hard to even find a source that says what's the difference between TiMidity and FluidSynth. The 2002 MIDI Linux howto I cited above only gave as the sole reason for using timidity the ability to use the Gravis-converted E-mu soundbanks, which only emphasizes the lack of in-depth coverage. Your vote seems to be WP:IUSEIT; it's easy to assume that whatever software you use is highly notable and should be noted by others. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the stack of Linux manuals we found here, my assumption seems to be correct. (Note that I only voted keep after those those books were mentioned, I was sceptical of my assumption.) —Ruud 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Wikipedia copies published as "books", there are are two conference proceedings mentioning/citing TiMidity and maybe 7 books, 5 of which have preview [51] [52] [53] [54] (there are many editions of this Red Hat / Fedora bible, all with similar one sentence coverage, but I count it only once) [55], including the cookbook above. Less than 10 citations, and no in-depth coverage in any, so I vote delete. Also, newer linux books tend to mention FluidSynth instead of this [56]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:02, 15 June 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. v/r - T P 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary

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

There is virtually no significant coverage of the concept of an 'executive summary' to be found. The reasons given for the removal of the PROD were that (a) the term is used a lot, ie. WP:ITEXISTS; and (b) the term produces many results on Google, ie. WP:GHITS. An attempt earlier today to flesh it out merely resulted in two examples of executive summaries being added; one from the State Department and one from the IEA. While moderately interesting, these don't substantiate the notability of executive summaries conceptually. This page is treated as a reference, although it is simply a short and glorified how-to-guide/dicdef.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and unless there is any detailed coverage of this topic, the article will never progress beyond being a slightly wishy-washy definition page. ╟─Treasury Tag►Syndic General─╢ 13:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's one of the most widely used ideas in business writing and is a thoroughly well established concept which is taught in business schools. A few moments research would have turned up plenty of reliable sources - for example I've just added one from the UK government together with an example from a major US government publication. andy (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
few moments [sic] research would have turned up plenty of reliable sources - for example I've just added one from the UK government together with an example from a major US government publication – but if you'd actually read the nomination statement, you'd have been aware of my assertion that those do not constitute significant coverage and would presumably have responded to it? ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 13:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't agree with your assertion. IMHO the State Department is a notable body and helps to establish significant coverage. BTW I've now added Harvard as a reference. andy (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the State Department is a notable body, but you seem not to understand what significant coverage means. The particular 'reference' you provided doesn't discuss executive summaries; it just proves that they are in use = they exist. Perhaps the US Government also uses a particular brand of pen but we can't just start an article on that unless there is coverage of the topic. The random diplomatic document you've linked to is evidently inadequate. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 13:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange argument. The UK government website I cited in the references devotes a whole page to defining the purpose of an executive summary, which is described as being of major importance. This is surely a "reliable source" that is "independent of the subject". Ditto Harvard Business Schools. Ditto Colorado State University. There are plenty more that can easily be found on Google but I think three major references is plenty enough to establish significant coverage. How many do you actually want? And strictly speaking examples of usages aren't needed but the State Department and the International Energy Agency are pretty good ones. andy (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 'whole page' is about a third of a page of A4 and is essentially a dicdef, as I said above. More or less could be said of the Harvard reference. What you need to do is take a look at the references used in the article Abstract (summary). That's a good example. Academic papers discussing the use and impact, including the economic impact, of abstracts are what is needed there, and something similar (though perhaps not quite as scholarly!) is what is required here. Not a few how-to guides from a few advice websites.
Strictly speaking examples of usages aren't needed – it's not that they're not needed, it's that they're not relevant. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per WP:SK#2 "obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations". Warden (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's traditional, on Wikipedia, to provide some sort of reason when making conduct allegations of "unquestionable vandalism or disruption." It's also traditional (not to mention obligatory) to provide reasoning when commenting in a deletion discussion. But then I'm sure you know all that. ╟─Treasury Tag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note—now that two editors other than my good self get my point, the above speedy-keep should be discounted as per WP:SK, which states that SK2 can only apply in cases where "nobody unrelated recommends deletion." ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how this would be expanded beyond a dicdef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Andy has added some interesting info that takes it beyond dicdef territory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little evidence that anything beyond a WP:DICTDEF is possible without immediately turning into a WP:OR essay. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the general notability guideline, destined to remain a dictionary definition. --Anthem 20:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [57]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are loads and loads of reliable sources dealing with the concept of the executive summary. I have added some and provided referenced expansion beyond a dictionary definition. I have tried to avoid it becoming a "how to" guide and becoming an advertisement for all the training material being thrust on potential report writers. Thincat (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...although your sources do all seem to be "downloadable workbooks" and "writing guides" and self-published "tutorials" [58] which – again – seem to focus on advice and subjective views about technique, rather than on the broad concept. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 21:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and it being self-published is perhaps why it is only used as a reference for the claim that books are available and not as a reference for the concept of an executive summary. The article itself does not read like a writing guide; such material has not been included. It explains the rationale, scope and structure of the executive summary. These aspects are variable, as for a poem. Thincat (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Self-published sources are not reliable sources ("Self-published media ... are largely not acceptable as sources,") and therefore do not count towards the GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources...") The rest of the material you have linked is all how-to materials. I really don't know how you can dispute that "downloadable workbooks" and "writing guides" and stuff are how-to materials.
As I mentioned above, compare this with Abstract (summary) – or even Novel and Job interview. These articles don't rely on self-help books and advisory sources. Such things do exist, obviously, but so do academic writings about the concept of the novel, and the concept of the job interview. It's that sort of coverage ("direct and in detail") which is required here. ╟─Treasury Tag►Storting─╢ 22:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about those references. Four of the six references added so far by Thincat originate from academically approved material provided through reputable universities for business education and training. Anyway, describing the commonly agreed structure of something doesn't turn an article into a "how to" guide. What about Harvey Wallbanger for example? Zero academic references, an ingredients list and some background trivia. At least this article can boast an example signed off by Hilary Clinton. andy (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about those references. Really? Four of the six references added so far by Thincat originate from academically approved material... I never said anything about this... ...provided through reputable universities for business education and training. I've bolded the relevant part. They're how-to guides. Not conceptual discussions. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 22:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it looks like you're using a spectacularly poor WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument about a cocktail drink to justify keeping an article about document drafting. But perhaps I'm mistaken? ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 22:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those arguing keep—please suggest ways in which the article could be expanded from its current dictionary definition state, without becoming a how-to guide. Please propose actual sentences you would put into the article, along with references to back up the assertions therein. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 22:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Abstract (summary). 'Executive summary' seems to be a notable concept, even if there isn't that much to actually say about it (but that's fine: not every article has to be Featured Article-length). Even if others here don't think that it's notable, it's clearly a plausible search term, so we should have something on it; my second choice would be to merge the content to Abstract (summary) and redirect it there. Robofish (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn here; my gut tells me that the subject is rather more nuanced than a mere dictdef, but I don't agree that the current references are sufficiently deep as to back that up. Robofish's suggested merge target is just as weak an article as this one just now and even more lacking in references; I'm not a big fan of rescue-by-aggregation. Much better would be to find a place for this in management, which is the real root topic if we consider this to be a business practice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable subject that is known in the common vernacular and can be found easily online. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GHITS then? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 07:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is notable does exist and nowadays will garner a lot of ghits. Although we're encouraged to present detailed arguments at AfD we don't actually have to. If other people have already done so, simply agreeing may be enough - especially when the mood of participants is as overwhelmingly clear as in this particular case. andy (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is fallacious -- that "anything that is notable does exist and nowadays will garner a lot of ghits" does not mean that anything that does exist and garners a lot of ghits is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it certainly does not mean that and nor did I say it! Warrior777 said that the term is notable AND it exists and has lots of ghits. TreasuryTag fallaciously said that this was the same as saying that it is notable BECAUSE it exists and has lots of ghits. I merely pointed out that he was wrong in this interpretation - notable things do exist and often have lots of ghits. Any notable modern term that doesn't appear widely on the web is unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Anyway, this is by the bye. The original nomination was about the term being merely a dicdef or howto supported by WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GHITS, but a lot of work has been put into the article since then and I don't see how those arguments can be sustained any more - there are plenty of reliable sources and it's clear that the topic is the subject of scholarly debate. It would be helpful if you could take a look and give us your opinion. andy (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the juxtaposition of the assertion of notability, and the mention of existence and Google hits, combined with the lack of any alternate justification, it was perfectly reasonable for TT to conclude that the existence and Google hits were offered as justification for the assertion. The only alternate interpretation would be that mention of the existence and Google hits were a complete non sequitor, and that the assertion was wholly unsubstantiated (which in no way improves Warrior777's argument). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were a non sequitur. Basically all Warrior777 said was "keep because it's notable" - not much of an argument but as I said it's very often the case that participants who agree with a point of view simply say delete or keep because they have nothing further to add. A-n-y-w-a-y what do you think of the article now? andy (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has expanded from WP:DICTDEF to WP:DICTDEF+WP:HOWTO+HOWNOTTO. In a geological eon or two it might develop into something not-wholly-covered by WP:NOT, but I'm not holding my breath. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article now show the concept has been the subject of professional writing and is an important concept, for anyone not familiar with how business works.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article thoroughly discredit the argument presented by the nominator. This is a very common term and the plethora of sources available support that. -- Selket ^Talk 21:36, 17 June 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 Userfy to User:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. v/r - T P 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India

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

Note to closing administrator: The page has been moved in the course of this discussion from Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India to Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. If the result is keep, the page should be moved again to Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India to conform with capitalisation of titles and the standard spelling of biopolymers on Wikipedia (or simply to Plastic recycling in India since the article seems to cover much more than just biopolymers). Voceditenore (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasted from [www.almitrapatel.com/docs/055.doc]; contested CSD; it's not an encylopedic article; it's more like a combination between advertisement and how-to-guide. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 12:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not easily fit into any CSD categories, but could have been PRODed (probably also contested). This article is an essay or an academic paper previously written by the article creator and is a download .doc from his/her website. Wikipedia is not a place to expose ecological issues or to promote ecological ideas or solutions. The article is original research, fails at WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTOPINION. Although well intended, it is therefore not encyclopedic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns - now resolved

Comment It seems to me that it fits into G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. The author's website, which hosts this article as a word doc is clearly marked on the home page "Copyright 2007 Almitra H. Patel. All rights are reserved." There is no evidence of an OTRS ticket releasing the copyright, plus it was also published in EnviroNews - Newsletter of ISEB India, Vol. 9 No. 4 - October 2003 with no evidence of a compatible free license. In my view the editor who removed the Db-g12 with edit summary "remove copy vio tagging as this is obviously the same person" was in error. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right there. I think we were going on the statement she made at Talk:Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but statements like that are not sufficient and never have been. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. To me, it's quite unambiguous on the subject. Even so, I've asked a copyright expert to give a second opinion on this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Copyvio template added until we have confirmation of permission. We can not simply assume the person who added this is linked to the website we need permission to use it either through OTRS or with an appropriate statement on the website. Will leave the contributor a message explaining this. See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Technical Copyvio at Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Dpmuk (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy. If per chance it cannot be speedied, it should be deleted on the grounds cited by Kudpung. It's basically an unsalvageable opinion piece and original rersearch in its current form and probably out of date as well. It was originally published 8 years ago. If the author is serious about wanting to contribute to Wikipedia on this topic, and I believe she's sincere and has the best intentions, then the best option would be for her to write a new article on Recycling in India (preferably as a user space draft), properly referenced to reliable sources, and not based solely on this one unreferenced article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've made a start on at least formatting the article per the Wikipedia Manual of Style and have had a chance to read it carefully. In addition to the major problems of non-neutral point of view and lack of referencing, the article is based on the recycling situation in India as it was 8 years ago when this piece was first published in EnviroNews. The article is so full of non-specific time contructs like "now", "may soon be", "recent", "currently", "not yet", "only last year" etc. that the job of re-writing this so that it is accurate, up-to-date and no longer potentially misleading is pretty huge. It really needs to be worked on outside of article space first. This is an interesting subject and definitely worth having on Wikipedia once these major problems have been sorted out. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be not be the right place to ask, but as an observer, it seems like this article might still be a good candidate for inclusion as a reference in the existing Plastic recycling article (where earlier I removed a See Also link to it, after the article had already been pulled, on the basis that there was no article at the link placed). Is there a good reason not to use it as a reference to expand that article? Would either the original site or the one it was also published on be more appropriate for that citation, if at all? duff

I think it might be OK for that, but perhaps use the published form (EnviroNews - Newsletter of ISEB India, Vol. 9 No. 4 - October 2003) rather than linking to the word doc. You could also ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone ahead as you suggested and added some information from the published version to Plastic recycling, about the dosing of bitumen with recycled plastics to make better roads, and I've fully cited that version there. It looks like a reliable source to me and if challenged, I'll accept RsN's thinking on it. Thanks for the good advice and the opportunity to help a little more than just deleting an empty link. duff 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article on plastic recycling in India could have merit. But a need for article is too much like an opinion piece. The page is not a copyright infringement, but is a problem due to incompatible licenses, so intent of the author is confused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment we have to treat it as a copyright infringement as we have no way of knowing that the person who uploaded it is the copyright holder. Until such time as that is confirmed or the source website changes their licence (in which case who uploaded it is moot) we have to err on the side of caution and treat it as a copyright infringement. Dpmuk (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment As the Ghost writer for the article in debate, I am most apologetic for the mistakes. I have been commissioned by the original author / the website owner to put this material onto wikipedia. Yes, a need for title seems much like an opinion, and I shall change that. However, the comments about this not being a place to promote ecological solutions? They are not solutions, but practically implemented, successfully running and well-founded in research ideas that need to be implemented into national legal frameworks to outline better practices for Solid waste management and Plastics Recycling. As for original research, it may certainly qualify but as it has been implemented, communicated, accepted regionally, can it not now be considered fit as encyclopedic knowledge? Or knowledge that could and should find its way into policy. Patel almitra (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani[reply]

Comment Don't worry, a lot of new contributors to Wikipedia don't quite realize the sometimes complicated restrictions that have to be placed on articles, and why. The three key ones which apply here are Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research, and Verifiability. To comply with these, the article would have to be so substantially re-written, that it would be better to start afresh. For example, the sections Where NOT to use bio-polymers, Eco-Labelling needs reform, and New Legislation take a very marked and particular point of view. I happen to agree with it myself, but it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. To comply with the other two policies, extensive referencing from independent published sources would be required. In other words, the article can't reference itelf. Here are just a few examples of the many assertions which would require independent sourcing:
"Indians have a remarkably small ecological footprint compared to citizens in advanced countries." (followed by various statistics)
"On the technical front, some research is currently going on to make PVCs degradable through the blending of biopolymer components. This is disastrous."
"Micro-packaging sachets are the most needed and most promising mass market for biopolymers."
"A money-making racket is going on in cities like Pune, where degradable bags are required to be used for biomedical waste management."
There's also a problem with the time constructs, words and phrases like "is going on", "now", "may soon be", "recent", "currently", etc.. These have no concrete time reference. The article was published 8 years ago, making these phrases meaningless, and also making the assertions containing them potentially out of date. I personally found the article very interesting. I'm wondering if a more appropriate place to put it would be Wikiversity, another a Wikimedia Foundation project which does accept material like this. Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Voceditenore. I am very grateful for your constructive criticism. Yes, the time frames do seem too fluid in the light of the article having been published 8years ago. I shall tighten the editing, and try to dig up the external resources that had been used. The material having been part of talks, and not scientific papers, had omitted the references, without knowing that someday they would be needed. I shall exhume them again. Patel almitra (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani[reply]

Comment. It's a little difficult to know who I'm talking to, Almitra Patel or Devayani, her 'ghost writer'.;-) Anyhow, I think you are both seriously underestimating how much work is going to be required if this article is to be kept on Wikipedia. This isn't a case of a few tweaks. It needs a complete re-write from top to bottom. I suggest that this article be userfied. That is, moved to User:Patel almitra/Plastic recycling in India (or something similar) where the draft can be worked on and experienced editors can give you advice on when the re-drafted article is suitable for moving back into article space. Voceditenore (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Voceditenore: The whole time you have been talking to the Ghost writer only :) Spooky huh? I understand the work required in uphauling the article, and am keen on fulfiling the Wikipedia standards. It will be a great learning experience. I am also amenable to the suggestion of moving this article into a Userfy section, I could do with all the help I can get. Thank you so much for your comments so far. I am glad you enjoyed the article, I shall persevere in publishing better ones in the future. (As the author had put in so much work on the material, we were unwilling to edit the article actively before. We had not realised Wiki's standards as readers :P)

Patel almitra (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits![reply]

Comment HELP! I seem to have successfully moved the page, as advised and not another deletion notice has come up, saying it is under the wrong template. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patel_almitra/Plastic_recycling_and_Bio-Polymers_in_India. Please help me rectify this, so that I can get the help I need for active editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patel almitra (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually, pages should not be moved pre-emptively to user space in the middle of a discussion. The AfD needs to be closed as userfy and an administrator should move it. I'm going to temporarily move it back. Then when the AfD closes, an admistrator can move back to your user space. In the meantime, go ahead and work on the article in its original place. It may be that you can sufficiently improve it before the AfD closes and it can be kept in article space with a new name, which again, an administrator ought to do. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I see that you have now moved the page back into article space under a new title Plastic recycling and Bio-Polymers in India. I've fixed the double re-direct, and adjusted the links on this AfD page and at the new page. But please don't make anymore page moves until the AfD is closed. The current new title will eventually have to be fixed if the AfD decision is to keep rather than userfy. It should be Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India to conform with capitalisation of titles and the standard spelling of biopolymers on Wikipedia. but let an adminstrator sort it out. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns - now resolved

Letter to the Copyright Board

I hereby affirm that [I, Almitra Patel am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Work on Solid waste Management in India which are in the form of essays under the titles of Waste Policy in India Plastics Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers articles, at http://www.almitrapatel.com/swm.htm, and http://www.almitrapatel.com/plastics_roads.htm] I agree to [publish these works under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. [SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (almitrapatel@rediffmail.com)] [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Copyright Holder for http://www.almitrapatel.com/)] [DATE (14/06/2011)] Patel almitra (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Devayani[reply]

Comment This needs to be sent as an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Posting here is not enough. Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certify that OTRS permission is confirmed in ticket 2011061410006865. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or otherwise move to Recycling in India or Plastic recycling in India. If the issues can be fixed, I see no harm in such an article, and in fact, it may improve the project. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bearian, for your vote of confidence. We shall strive to make better edits and meet the standards Wiki demands. Shall look at the articles you have mentioned and see where this one can be slotted in. Patel almitra (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Ghost Writer for edits![reply]

KEEP - This s the only one article on "recycling in India", a country that holds 20% of this planets population. I have no clue why people are saying delete it, because it is not 100% accurate,not grammatically correct etc!! Also I'm puzzled when people say , 'Wiki is not a place to expose ecological issues or to promote ecological ideas or solutions', even in the context of recycling. Ok, put a 30-point size warning at the top about the possible inaccuracies and incompleteness, I dont mind, but KEEP the article, until another factually correct one can replace it. Points like '...worse for railway meals, where all such cups get thrown out the windows all along the tracks'(may not be an issue in western countries should be a concern for both politicians and scientists in India. Discussion on Polystyrene issue points to the global ecological concerns of the material. At any cost KEEP it, but encourage improvements and experiences from different cities of the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.97.241 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 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. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp and Paper merit badge

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

~~This scouting badge does not seem to meet the general notability guideline, due to a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Anthem 11:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Earlier deletion debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulp and Paper Merit Badge. --Anthem 11:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~ Revert AfD nomination, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Back in 2006, I favored keeping this, but it has not improved. Notability guidelines are now tougher and this article does not have independent reliable sources that show it is notable. We do not seem to have any other articles on merit badges in the US and this is one of the least popular. I do not think we need articles for merit badges, proficiency badges, and the like in every Scouting organisation in the world. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [59]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but how was this ever allowed to survive before? Of no wider notability than within the BSA - and, as a low popularity award I guess fairly non-notable there too. DiverScout (talk) 20:49, 17 June 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. Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Spotiswoode

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

I can't find no reliable and independent evidence confirming that this person ever existed. During its short existence here on Wikipedia, the article became a target of really strange editing, see for example this. I asked the article's creator for explanation, but I received no answer. I'm sorry to say that, but I suspect a hoax. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax Had he really founded a magazine, and if he were known for his theory, I would expect to find some evidence of their existence, eg in the British Library index or Google. As for the man himself, a Google search takes you to some very strange places. He fails the notability test anyway - he does not even get to the starting gate for WP:ACADEMIC if nobody has heard of him. --AJHingston (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. No evidence of the book he is supposed to have written: for example, not in Cambridge University Library catalogue. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Childish hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - hoax. --Anthem 11:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [60]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No hits on both Yahoo and Google to even suggest that this is a notable person. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise. He's not even a real person! Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think this article is a more sophisticated attempt of FTMcMahon (talk · contribs) to deceive Wikipedia. His previous creations on not notable high school students were deleted. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Closing admin should consider a site ban on the creator (after giving him the opportunity to respond). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

We seem to have an astonishingly high tolerance for authors of completely fake articles. However I don't think it's within the remit of an admin to ban an editor on his own motion, although I would support an indefinite block with the implicit offer of a return if the editor in question accepts they were wrong and agrees not to do it again. That is, assuming that this is, as I think, a complete fake. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Although the article preposterous it is technically proficient. If the creator could be persuaded to turn away from the dark side and follow the straight and narrow path he might have the makings of a useful editor. On the other hand he seems to be a multiple offender. Perhaps a threat that further offences will meet with condign punishment will suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Blocking policy is that blocks "should not be intended as a punishment". Multiple offenders should be blocked "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia". If they use the opportunity to reflect on and change their ways, fine. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another fair comment, Sergeant. But there would be a case to prevent disruption. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 19 June 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. Procedural keep. This can be immediately relisted. v/r - T P 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft

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

Plot only coverage of a fictional topic, which does not meet the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple third party sources. Anthem 11:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with most science fiction television series (such as Star Trek, Star Wars), the vehicles and technology are often as much an integral part of the series as the characters, and so coverage of the series requires at least some summary of those elements, and we should be surprised to not find any sources at all discussing those elements in the context of the series. I see no coverage of these elements in the parent article at present, so deletion is not an option. This list would have to be merged to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED even if trimmed substantially, or kept as a standalone list if it remains too large. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the content can be verified by citations to reliable sources there is no good reason to add it to the parent article. Adding unsourced and poor quality coverage of the vehicles and weapons as in this list would not improve the parent article. --Anthem 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. Though I personally think that such spin-out lists are reasonable to gives some depth to each significant fictional element's roll in the overall plot of the work without causing the main article to lose its focus. I also think that there is being a gross mis-application of WP:NOTE to lists because WP:NOTE has never been apply directly to lists. —Farix (t | c) 19:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing but WP:PLOT, and I do not see any notability as there are no references present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas, who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchize.[61] —Farix (t | c) 17:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is completely unreferenced so all the content is original research by synthesis at best. With no sources, there is no presumption that the topic meets the general notability guideline. The content itself is exclusively a plot-only description of a fictional work and in no way the list meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Since nothing is referenced, I do not think that a merge is deserved or that any other alternative than deletion is valid. Jfgslo (talk) 15:13, 17 June 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. Procedural keep, this can be immediately relisted. v/r - T P 14:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel class assault ship

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

Plot only coverage of a fictional aircraft carrier. Additionally, the subject of the articles fails the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources on the topic. Anthem 11:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED vehicles and aircraft. Not only is this a viable search term, but it is better to merge content to a list or another article over deleting it. —Farix (t | c) 19:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, likely search term for the series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas [62], who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchize —Farix (t | c) 17:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bad faith nom as per above. Jtrainor (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: The fictional ship does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The content is generated with primary sources and original research by synthesis, so I don't see any value in merging it. I'm not convinced that it is a plausible search term, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt since there is no disambiguation in the article title, so a redirect is acceptable. Jfgslo (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article clearly needs improvement, this is a central element of the Gundam franchise, comparable to the Starship Enterprise's importance withing the Star Trek franchise. Edward321 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 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. v/r - T P 14:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Journal of Computer Science

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any discriminative major databases. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals Crusio (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May become notable in the future, but not yet. Only one issue published, not yet indexed anywhere. Nsk92 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 June 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. v/r - T P 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Firefly

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

This person is probably fictional. The cited sources do not seem to exist (and given their publication dates cannot possibly cover much of the article). The bio reads like a series of lame jokes. On the talk page, a comment suggests that the character has been made up by Andre Vincent which sounds more plausible than anything in this article. Rl (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither WorldCat, Amazon, nor Google Books find The Dark Behind The Smile: The Andy Firefly Story. Non-notable at best, and quite possibly a hoax. LadyofShalott 11:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searched for the book and the publisher thoroughly - neither exists - this is a hoax - as per the comment on the talk page. Mark^Dask 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Johnclean184 (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax, Edward321 (talk) 13:30, 19 June 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 Powerpuff Girls. v/r - T P 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Inside

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

Only two references, this article does not meet the episode's notability. JJ98 (Talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to episode list. Article is nothing more than a brief plot summary and some (IMDb-referenced) information already found in the main PPG article. Paper Luigi ^{Talk • Contributions} 19:24, 5 June 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 09:09, 13 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopia Festival

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

fails WP:GNG. for a recent festival nothing in gnews and nothing in a major Australian news service [63]. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Short-lived music festival, now defunct, that does not seem to have garnered any outside coverage during its three-year existence. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't fail Wikipedia:GNG, the article cites numerous independent references. Dan arndt (talk) 06:00, 13 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep article looks well referenced. I saw entries on Trove and google search & bing search. it's also listed on all the major Australian psytrance sites/portals. also it was one of the places that "two-time Academy Award nominee", David Bradbury's documentary Blowin' In The Wind was screened (about uranium effects overseas & the testing in Aus). archived here & here Kathodonnell (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per other keep arguments - by the very nature of life and existence in Darwin NT - many very notable events do not necessarily hit southern states media - and to claim that hits on southern states are required for something to be notable (gng - not there = doesnt have N is false reasoning) - then it shows an astonishing lack of understanding of how regional issues can exist in Australia that do not hit mainstream southern media, nominator should think again about such nominations Satu Suro 12:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

many localised regional events worldwide do not qualify for WP notability for that very reason, for something to make WP, it needs a lot more than local coverage. It's got nothing to do with the southern states media conspiracy. What an astonishing concept. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News Australia has a Darwin office, but even they can't be bothered covering this event. [64]. so much for southern states ignoring it. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I serched on the ABC website rather than google and got a hit seams they did cover the festival Gnan garra 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on this link and it gave me an article on nuclear power and nothing to do with this specific festival. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am willing to be educated on Australian sources, but it looks to me as if all the "independent sources" in the article are basically just calendar-type listings. I'm not seeing any significant coverage or review by independent reliable sources. And I don't know of any Wiki policy that says, since evidence of notability could be hard to find we should just keep the article without such evidence. The fact that the festival screened a documentary by David Bradbury does make the festival itself notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The fact that the festival only existed for three years seems to detract from its notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced, noting that Trove also lists additional sources some online but these are behind paid per view walls. Gnan garra 11:32, 15 June 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. -- Lear's Fool 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADG CLASS 5 Oxidizers

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

No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically per everyone above. Out of interest, did anyone end up getting in contact with whoever's running this project? Jenks24 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Between Nick-D and I we left messages on the talk pages of all the editors who created the articles asking them to point their lecturer towards our discussion; I don't think we got any replies. I haven't tried email - the few users I just checked didn't set email addresses. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nice to know that you've tried to get in contact. Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlisted the talk pages of the editors I contacted and there were no responses there either. I'd like to make contact with their lecturer to offer advice on how to avoid the problems with this project happening again, but this seems impossible unless she or he self-identifies. Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 16 June 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. v/r - T P 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Dangerous Goods Code (ADG) Class 4: Flammable Solids

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

No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete copy and paste from the standards website. LibStar (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copied and pasted, entire Dangerous Goods Act is notable and useful but wouldn't agree with individual sections having individual articles like this. Jenova20 14:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, possibly copy-paste work. Rather non-notable subject. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:01, 13 June 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. -- Lear's Fool 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADG Code Class 6 Toxics

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

No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG. Nothing significantly salvageable. Lord Vetinari 07:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete copy and paste from the standards website. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 15 June 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. Changing close to delete per series of AfDs on this subject v/r - T P 14:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Dangerous Goods Code (ADG) Class 1: Explosives

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

No significant coverage in secondary sources makes this obscure section of an obscure Australian standard non-notable. The article is just a summary of the regulation, not an encyclopedia. Nothing worth merging into the main article - indeed similar content was deleted from that main article. This article appears to have been created as part of a university project; see this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for related articles. Contested PROD. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —bou·le·var·dier (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Unencyclopedic compliance guide. Nothing that seems to pass GNG and warrants a separate article. Lord Vetinari 07:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:N and fails WP:HOWTO. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Australian Dangerous Goods Code (7th Ed) is available in its entirety online so its a moot point whether this extract serves any purpose. Mark^Dask 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Australian Dangerous Goods Code. —[d'oh] 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here we go again, complete copy and paste from the standards website. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 17 June 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. v/r - T P 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trollheim's Grott

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unsourced (and, it seems, unsourceable) after nearly ~~six~~seven years. No improvement since the first AFD 3 years ago. Arguments that members also played in other bands of similar obscurity and with a similar lack of coverage seemed to win the argument last time, but how long are we going to keep an unsourced, unverifiable article like this? Michig (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michig (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The previous AfD defaulted to 'keep' due to lack of consensus. It does not appear to have been mentioned in that debate that the band does not satisfy WP:BAND - and it still doesn't. Plenty of listings and music download sites, blogs and spurious mentions, so there's no doubt the band existed or still produces, but again, none of the sources satisfy the ingredients for WP:RS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete yes it exists, but there is no indication of notability or importance HominidMachinae (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning N^oformation ^Talk 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. I searched Google and Yahoo and only found this link. It isn't sufficient for an entire article. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:11, 17 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Energy Now

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [65] and nothing in a major Australian news website [66]. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No doubt a laudable organization, but not notable since no significant independent coverage could be found. --MelanieN (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above statement. Not notable, no notable members, no notable activities, etc. Appears to be a well-meaning bunch of nobodies. Nath1991 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom hit all of the right points. Article does not establish general notability due to the lack of reliable and verifiable third-party sources, instead relying on a link to the organization's website. A quick Google search does not return anything useful. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:18, 13 June 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. Without prejudice to recreation if RS'ing for 1974 Asian Games is found. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrollah Omidi

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

I'm guessing he represented Iran at the 1974 Asian Games that were held in Iran, but I can't find any evidence of this. Happy to withdraw the nomination or recreate if proof that he was in the team at a significant competition is able to be found. The-Pope (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I typed "Nasrollah Omidi" in a search engine and came back with no reliable results, aside from Wikipedia mirror webpages. This page can't survive without both information on Nasrollah and why Wikipedia should have a page for him. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:56, 9 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Had a search myself and couldn't find any reliable sources to verify that he competed at the 1974 Asian Games (or any other event). Also happy to reverse my vote if someone has more luck or ability than me with finding references. Jenks24 (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. no prejudice against future recreation upon actual sources found. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 18 June 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 Jump5. v/r - T P 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fedun

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

No other member of Jump5 has a personal article, and he has no other major contributions to the industry Christiefan1 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not even sure Jump5 is notable; their article reads like an advertisement and gives no indication of significance in the music industry. Most of the rather trivial things Chris Fedun has done outside the band are already mentioned on the Jump5 article, so the Fedun article is redundant.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:43, 8 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jump5. LadyofShalott 11:48, 13 June 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} 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Marte

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

Minor league baseball player who fails Wikipedia:MLB/N. Albacore (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not being notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 10 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 13 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Fabiano

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

Contested PROD. Has released one "album" since 2005. Said album only contains 3 tracks on it, none of which have charted from what I can see. I have found it difficult to establish the notability of this person through reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, they either fall into not reliable, nor not independent of the subject. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see subject as meeting WP:Music. I did not locate significant coverage meeting the WP:GNG. Review of references-- ^ Biography, IMDb. does not contain infromation showing subject meets notability requirements; ^ Baby, CD. merely a spot to download the songs; ^ iTunes, Apple. "First Landing on iTunes". spot to download the song; ^ Records, Cannaphonic. "Cannaphonic Records, LLC". Subject's record label; ^ iTunes, Apple. "Walking All Alone by Corlean (feat. Connor Fabiano)". spot to dowload song. Allmusic page does not show anything that meets notability requirements. Subject has not charted on BillBoard. Willing to consider any coverage that turns up. All I saw were profiles and promo's. Dloh cierekim 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 June 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 13 June 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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 Christchurch earthquake

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

WP:RECENTISM; WP:NOTNEWS; Non notable event, ~~no casualties, no deaths, no damage.~~ Though it caused some damage, I don't think it is worthy of having an article on Wikipedia. At the very least, merge with 2011 Christchurch earthquake Diego Grez (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references tell me that six people were wounded. Why are you wanting to delete a short, yet well referenced article that does this encyclopedia no harm by existing? Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia isn't a news source. Diego Grez (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That page hardly reads like a news article. Per those policies we should be deleting pages on every event that is recorded here. I'll get started deleting other news events such as the Battle of Waterloo, Russian Revolution, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not necessarily. The first one you linked occurred in 1815, the other one is a dab page with links to at least three different revolutions in the 20th century. None of them should nor are written like a news article. This one, in contrast, is about an event that occurred just minutes ago. Diego Grez (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - So applaud the person on their quick writing? I'm sure that if Wikipedia had existed in 1815 someone would have written an article on the Battle of Waterloo as soon as they found out about it. We should hardly be discouraging the creation of well written, well referenced articles like this one per the fact that it's based on a recent event. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you read those policies, you'd know that Wikipedia shouldn't be for current news sources. It doesn't matter if this earthquake happened a few minutes ago or a few decades ago. If it was only based on minimal news coverage without any broader evidence of its encyclopediac nature, then the nominator has a valid concern for the existence of the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I know, and had it been written as a news article I'd have supported its deletion. But as it is, you are asking me to support deleting a well written, neutral, well referenced event in history, and I see no reason to do that. WP:IAR if nothing else. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ajraddatz, NOTNEWS is a content guideline, not a style guideline. An article can be written in pitch-perfect encyclopedia style and still cover an event that received no lasting coverage and had no lasting effects. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        50 buildings damaged, 10 people wounded? The locals will remember that if nothing else, and since it is very well written... I still say let's keep it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was an ill-considered move, Diego Grez, putting an event like this, which is causing distress to a large number of people, up for deletion while it is current. Among other things, these people urgently need reliable information on the web, which Wikipedia normally, somewhat, provides. Please take note of this, and wait until the dust settles before you make a move like this in the future. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note the following five words: "I don't give a fuck." It does not matter if it happened now or a millenium ago, the event itself is part of the 2010-2011 New Zealand earthquakes series, and it should not be on a stand-alone article, rather inside the earthquake's article pointing out it is the most important aftershock, nothing else. If people need "reliable information on the web", they shouldn't be using Wikipedia at all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source; a helping source at best, but not the ultimate one. I'll reiterate it once again, I don't give a fuck if it "was an ill-considered move" according to you, it's your point of view, and I'll continue to think this is rather useless. Diego Grez (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please leave the Wikipedia community and only return when you have grown up. It is my belief that at 16 your POV is not exactly inline with that of the community as a whole. I thank you for your past contributions, however in future these will not be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.183.128 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        None of that is any excuse for not staying WP:CIVIL. Jpatokal (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Few comments: Epipelagic, Wikipedia's aim is not as you state. We are not meant as a first source of information. We are an encyclopaedia. Diego: I've known you for a while from ITN, and I am rather surprised by your unnecessary outburst here. Agree to disagree, please. Anon: That was unnecessary and pure trolling. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep". Moderately significant earthquake occurring in the anglosphere.160.39.54.130 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per OP's reasoning. The cited policies exist for a reason and having pages on non notable news events does harm wikipedia N^oformation ^Talk 04:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it harm us? Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ajraddatz, it harms us in that it is an example of turning Wikipedia into a news source. This website is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such, it needs to fit the criteria in WP:NOTNEWS, as stated above. The way the article is written is irrelevant, this discussion is about the subject of the article. This earthquake, while tragic, is a news event, not an encyclopedic event. Bstbll (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is flawed: NOTNEWS does not say that Wikipedia should not cover news events, it only says that being in the news alone is not sufficient to establish notability. Events with "enduring notability" (to quote NOTNEWS) can be both in the news and encyclopedic at the same time, and if the event caused scores of buildings to collapse, it'll be remembered for longer than the daily news cycle. Jpatokal (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: Several people have been hurt, and some serious damage. It's notable following the disastrous February New Zealand Eathquake in which 100+ people were killed and Christchurch is still reeling from that event.

At very worst, Merge it into the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Nath1991 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, SMH reports ~50 buildings collapsed. This is clearly a major event. [67] --Xaliqen (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to collapsing buildings, latest counts have 10+ people injured. Also, by the draft guidelines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes#Notability criteria, the earthquake (intensity VIII) qualifies by having an intensity of VII or higher. It's also over 3 months after the previous earthquake, so it's not a part of the same event. Jpatokal (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and there is now a confirmed death as well. [68] Jpatokal (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The earthquake was also significant enough to get widespread reporting and is encyclopedic value... so it should be kept. Aeonx (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is significant, especially if the number of casualties rise.Wheatsing (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The earthquake resulted in a casualty, as well as extensive damage, therefore it should remain as its own article, the locals will remember this event, and many of them spent a long amount of time without electricity and water as a result of the quake, they also now warn that other severe aftershocks could occur, these are all good reasons on why this page should remain. They are also considering this to be a separate event to the previous earthquakes. LabradorGroup (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is news. It might become notable later but I doubt it. It's really just a chapter in the story of the February earthquake. andy (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable earthquake with many reliable sources and NOTNEWS doesn't rule it out just for happening recently so that shouldn't be a problem. Jenova20 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a new chapter in a sequence of events dating to Sep 2010, as a major event in the cycle it warrants its own page, particularly notable for a rapid sequence of severe shocks causing significant further damage to already fragile structures, multiple injuries and fresh damage to already repaired infrastructure. The event is four months from the Feb quake and which was four months from the Sept quake, and will trigger it's own sequence of aftershocks over the next few days. Over 50 buildings collapsed in the CBD. So KEEP. 118.136.208.35 (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC) http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/canterbury-earthquake/77629/more-significant-quakes-rock-canterbury http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/06/20116134130249928.html 118.136.208.35 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any significant information into the 2011 Christchurch earthquake article. The damage and injuries reported to date are not quite severe enough to warrant a separate article. It's a fairly strong aftershock, but I think it's best covered within the context of the previous quake. --Avenue (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm Neutral. The possible fatality, increase in magnitude, and further reports of injuries and damage have moved this into borderline territory for me. --Avenue (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a another devastating blow to this city after two already powerful earthquakes last September and this last February, and has caused very significant damage as well as injuries. If some of the aftershocks from the Japan quake can have their own article I think this one should have the right to have one as well. I also don't believe this is a formatted as a news article.

--Stormchaser89 (talk) 11:56am, 13 June 2011 (US central time)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into 2011 Christchurch earthquake as per User:Avenue. Would not be significant enough for an article on its own if the February earthquake had not happened. Subsidiary only. NOTNEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep its useful and it may g et bigger. a major historic building was destroyed. Maybe a template could be made called Christchurch earthquakes and new zealand dollar falling keep 86.181.131.187 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:Notnews and merge useful information into an aftershock section in 2011 Christchurch earthquake. There have been a lot of aftershocks in Chch, this is a bad one, but not bad enough to warrant it's own article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Just watched a decent news segment on it in Australia. While a merge would also work, it is probably notabile enough for its own article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is an article about the 2007 Gisborne earthquake, which had no injuries and less damage Detonate (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is being regarded as both GeoNet and NZEQC as a separate event to the February event, and has certainly caused both casualties (non-fatal, thankfully) and significant damage (e.g., the collapse of Lyttelton Timeball Station's tower). FWIW, February's earthquake was 6.3 on the Richter scale, this one has recently been upgraded also to 6.3. As such, regarding it as separate from February's aftershocks seems sensible - and there well be enough information as a result of it to make a fairly sizable article. Grutness...wha? 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to strong keep - one fatality reported now, which makes this one of only three deadly earthquakes in NZ in the last 65 years. That by itself is enough for it to pass any notability requirements. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be related to the earthquake [69] AIRcorn (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - death, injuries and destruction reported so far. it's a 6.3, so it's still fairly notable. possibly merge with February; but they are both 6.3, so should be able to stand on their own. Since it's recent, we don't know all about it yet. There might be more info discovered soon making it more notable but as it is, I say it should be notable enough to stay. More notable than 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake (a 6.3 with no deaths), so you have to delete that before you can delete this. Kaldosh (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just adding that aside from considerable notability due to its impact, the earthquake and the weaker M 5.6 event have led to the discovery of an entirely different fault in the region. This is quite significant and makes it notable on scientific grounds. source for now, but more information (and possibly a scientific name) is likely to emerge. ★ Auree _talk 06:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging into 2011 Chch earthquakes? Qrfqr (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I'm from Christchurch, I'm currently overseas. But from what I've heard and seen, this event meets all the criteria of notability. Schwede 66 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These quakes caused further damage (including to at least two historical buildings - the Timeball and the cathedral) and liquefaction, and there has been at least one causality. Also, it gained special news coverage from ONE News - if that's not notable, then what is? pcuser42 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A large quake in a major city, widespread damage and disruption, significant coverage which is too large to merge with an already large article on the previous earthquake.--Melburnian (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: One fatality, an old man who fell over an was knocked unconcious in the quake and later died. Around 45 injuries, significant further damage to the city, at 6.3 the main shock was of the same magnitude as the Feb 22 quake, the latest quake was on a fault not linked to the Feb 22 event, so it's a new event in a cycle of quakes striking the city. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/christchurch-wakes-to-50-earthquake-20110615-1g2b4.html 118.136.208.35 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Today they announced that this earthquake was on a different fault to the earlier quakes, making it entirely separate from previous events LabradorGroup (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event and widely covered in the media, the event is still on going (aftershocks) with the likely-hood of bigger quake due to the latest (13 June) 6.3 quake. Bidgee (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a 6.3M this is just as significant as the February Earthquake. BTW Why, oh why, is 2011 Christchurch earthquake in the singular??? if only that were true! alastairgbrown (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that an earthquake that affected 400,000 people with intensity VI+ shaking is mere "news", especially considering the damage and casualty reports. Darhan (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think anyone who has the time and motivation to want to delete this entry must have way too much time on their hands. This is a valid event in its own right and the hasty impulse of one person is essentially irrelevant. (see numerous links for supporting evidence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.60.35 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I suppose a consensus has been reached then? ★ Auree _talk 19:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not entirely decided on this one, but i see no reason to delete the article, it can always be edited to make it less "newsy" and more "encyclopaedic", that's the beauty of Wikipedia...Trex21 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One related death, several injuries, considerable damage including the total destruction of an iconic landmark. Nominator has descended into incivility: [70] Daveosaurus (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should probably close this. ★ Auree _talk 06:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It hasn't yet run a full week, it's not a clear WP:SNOW result (trending towards no consensus), and the nominator hasn't withdrawn the nomination. Incivility or not, there is no justification for an early close. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:EVENT. There is sufficient coverage in multiple news sources to justify an article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should stay, because one person was killed and it caused more damage, including a few buildings collapsing. If it happened in America then of course it would stay, so why not New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.58.80 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it happened in America, and it was an aftershock of an XYZ earthquake, it should be merged into that earthquake article, and should not be on a standalone article. See 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Diego Grez (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except by that logic that article should be merged too, since it's also an aftershock of the 2010 Canterbury earthquake. ★ Auree _talk 04:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a significant event in New Zealand's history and geology - there were two Wairarapa Earthquakes in 1942 that are regarded as separate events, similarly the Arthurs Pass and Murchison Earthquakes of 1929 are considered separate. While the 1942 earthquakes don't have pages (but the should), the two 1929 earthquakes each have their own pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.56.214 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were two earthquakes affecting Christchurch on 13 June 2011. A 5.1 magnitude foreshock at 1:00 PM was strong enough to cause the evacuation of buildings which meant that when the 2:20 PM magnitude 6.3 mainshock struck most people had been evacuated from the most dangerous areas. Hence there were relatively few casualties. While both the June and February earthquakes appear to have been triggered by the 4 September 2010 Canterbury Earthquake, it may be that the June quake has higher ground accelerations than the February one. This alone makes the June event notable. The proposal to merge the February and June earthquakes is also inappropriate for the same reason. Rather the three earthquake articles should be clearly named and disambiguated to distinguish between the three separate earthquake events. Other earthquakes in the Canterbury aftershock sequence, such as the Boxing Day 2010 earthquake and the Queens Birthday Weekend 2011 earthquake that are also regarded as separate insurable events by EQC are probably notable enough to merit a mention in an overview article about the whole aftershock sequence of earthquakes, as will be the next magnitude 6+ earthquake that now has a 30% chance of occurring within the next year. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:26, 19 June 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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwizard

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

The company is very borderline on notability. There are some mentions in local media and minor media, no major coverage. Only source given is the company's website. Article is written in a general promotional tone, although it is not promotional enough to qualify for g11. Delete Safiel (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hate to actually !vote to delete an article, but this is an unfortunate exception. The article does read like a promotion, and unfortunately with no further citations it is hard to reword it in a way which it isn't. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Speedy delete, article is entirely unambiguous advertising. Yet another non-notable tech startup advertising on Wikipedia: ....a technology company offering the most comprehensive web-based software platform for green building materials from thousands of manufacturers.... the only data-driven marketing solution that brings green building products face to face with decision makers in the design and construction community actively engaged in projects.... the most advanced analytical tools and information available..... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, as noted above, this is unambiguous advertising. Article was created by an SPA.Dialectric (talk) 20:53, 16 June 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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slash (bahrani)

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

Was tagged and blanked as a possible attack page. Several admins, including me, are unsure what to do here (See:Talk:Slash (bahrani)). ~~The page has been left blanked as a precaution - see history to view contents.~~(content restored according to AfD template policy). The community should decide what should be done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original CSD tagger. Same rationale as I've posted before, but I originally felt it was a hoax. Then after seeing these edits I felt it is an editor trying to create an offensive term to attack a group of people.--v/r - T P 03:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as No context. I can't figure out genuinely what this is even about. Failing that delete as wp:BOLLOCKS HominidMachinae (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be totally non-encyclopedic. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:47, 14 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Burley

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

I am unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability. A link to ancestry.ca is the only source on the article, and that is behind a paywall. But in any case, it is a user generated content site, which even if it was available to the general public would still not constitute a reliable source. I am able to locate a few other similar user generated geneology site mentions as well, but those also do not appear to be reliable sources from a Wikipedia perspective. I am happy to withdraw this nomination if significant notability can be established through reliable sources. But as it stands now since I have been unable to locate them, this appears to not warrant an article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:39, 29 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) 01:50, 5 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no assertion of notability. Half the article is about the 1st Battle of Saratoga, also known as the Battle of Freeman's Farm but the subject of the article is presumably named after the farm, not the other way around. Otherwise, just a summary of a fairly ordinary life in extraordinary times. Mere political affiliation and military service does not count unless he has been the subject of intense biographical study in his own right, which seems unlikely since he never did anything of note, and nothing of this nature appears on a Google search. --AJHingston (talk) 08:21, 13 June 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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Intezamullah Shahabi

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to support the notability of this person, whose article has been tagged for notability for some time now. Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is kept then the honorific, "mufti", should be dropped from the article title, and this seems to be a more common romanization of the subject's name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'm sure there are other possible spellings. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 30 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) 02:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article does not establish notability - except possibly to a Pakistani or other Urdu speaker. However, the (admittedly still few) references brought up by Phil Bridger's alternative search term produce several citations of historical works by him in Urdu - enough to suggest, while online recent sources in English have very little of use to say, a trawl through offline sources in Urdu from several decades back (when he was writing) might well establish his notability comfortably. The question, I suspect, is whether there is, or is likely to be in the foreseeable future, anyone able and willing to do such a trawl. Oh, and if the article is kept, move it per Phil Bridger. PWilkinson (talk) 16:21, 5 June 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I found 0 zero results on both Google and Yahoo except for Facebook page. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:10, 19 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperformance

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

Fails WP:Notability, specifically fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is no significant, sustained coverage of this company in any independent sources. A couple brief mentions exist (e.g. [71]) but the criteria call for more than that. Suggested search strings: Hyperformance + engine, Hyperformance + v-twin, Hyperformance + Harley, Hyperformance + racing, Hyperformance + Iowa, etc. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While they certainly exist, the article makes no claims of importance or notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:35, 13 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2009 box office number-one films in Argentina

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

There are no sources listed and none found to verify the authenticity or accuracy of this list. It was deprodded with claims of notability and because similar lists exist, yet lists like this aren't subject to notability but they are subject to verifiability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for any sources (in an attempt to save the article) out there and came up fruitless. If there are no sources to be found, then it probably is not reliable as encyclopedic content. Dusty777 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a note on the Film Project talkpage for any help with this. Lugnuts (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like the content came from Box Office Mojo. I'm not familiar with lists, but I think that a list like this for the United States is notable because there's often explanatory text for every weekend. I don't think that there is such text for this topic in a country like Argentina, and it seems more like unencyclopedic statistics. However, the United States lists are lacking explanatory text in the Wikipedia lists themselves, and such text should be added to show that these lists are warranted for that country. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be worth looking at WP:LISTN and WP:SALAT. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Keep – This list can easily be sourced through mojo so I suggest we add the source and close this particular discussion. That said I think we need to discuss this family of articles, because I'm not sure if there is much encyclopedic value in such lists. One possibililty would be to take a more structured approach and have an article on "national cinema" for each year, and merge articles such as this one with List of Argentine films of 2009, along with a top 10 annual box office chart etc. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "a list of films which have placed number one at the weekend box office" - I just don't see the encyclopaedic value in this - why just the weekend? Why not the whole week? Indeed, each of the dates happen to be Sundays? If this was a list of the highest grossing films in 2009 (and for all I know such a list may exist) then that would have some point. As it is, it is just insubstantial fluff. TerriersFan (talk) 23:44, 21 June 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Bakker

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

Non-notable person. Zero refs. Tagged for notability since 2009.Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 3 June 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) 01:24, 6 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, no sources, doesn't appear to be notable, been tagged for notability since 09, nothing appears to have been done to show she is notable in any way. Nath1991 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not notable in any way, thus meaning her article has no significant meaning or interest to people.Dusty777 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, thus very likely non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:04, 13 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle

AfDs for this article:

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

I've checked, and cannot myself find sufficient evidence of notability in the coverage of this band by reliable sources (though there is limited coverage). This article was considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveling Circle. Only 1 other editor -- an IP -- participated in the discussion. The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the only real significant coverage I could find. Unless more can be found, I don't think that's enough to merit an article.--Michig (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more articles on Traveling Circle:

Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. We need evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources here - see WP:RS for details.--Michig (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle exists and this is evidenced by their release on Nasoni Records out of Berlin. Yes, they are an underground band and some may think they're not 'notable' or 'significant'. But underground is a historic phenomenon and thus has a place in any encyclopaedia, especially an online one like wikipedia. And I can't believe someone is splitting hairs over the fact that Traveling Circle hasn't completed their second album yet as a requirement to be on wikipedia. They are currently working with Gordon Raphael (The Strokes producer) to release their second album. So even if someone deletes this page, I guess we'll just try to put it back up again when the second album is complete to keep things 'notable' and 'significant'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkSon (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In response to ArkSon: we aren't here to debate if it exists, we're fully aware of that. Likewise, I exist, but I don't have a wikipedia article about myself. The fact that a famous person is working/has worked with them (Gordon Raphael, Yoed Nir) doesn't make them notable, and none of the links cited in the article or here are enough to establish notability. Yes, underground exists. However, by that argument, every teenager's garage band should be included here because they're underground. Until enough WP:RS are found that we can conclude that the band is notable, this article has no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstbll (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of enough references. Just because the article mentions MySpace, Twitter and other pages like that, doesn't mean it's automatically notable. If they are mentioned on more reliable sources such as TV stations and newspapers/magazines, THEN we have a good article. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Both the Aquarian Weekly and Deli Magazine articles above appeared in their print editions. Upcoming article in the Italian print-only publication Vincebus Eruptum is forthcoming. Here is a link to the last issue: http://www.vincebuseruptum.it/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=139&Itemid=64 That makes at least three print articles. Thanks.

I believe with both an album on a significant independent record label and published articles covering the band both on the web and in print, this article satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Could somebody please post a link to the criteria for including an entry on a band? I have read them previously but was not currently able to locate them though I made an effort to do so. I recall both of the above points to be among them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the General Notability Guideline there's also WP:NBAND - frankie (talk) 21:00, 13 June 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 Voice (U.S. TV series). Going out on a limb a bit here. The nom is a good one, and neither of the Keep votes adequately rebut it. Given that the AfD has already been relisted twice, the obvious "compromise" is to redirect to the parent show (as we normally do for non-winners or otherwise notable contestants). This also maintains the edit history should Ms.Elise become obviously notable in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Elise

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

Contested prod. This is a contestant in a reality television show, who as of this writing has yet to be named a winner (which is, as we all already know, the bare minimum that Wikipedia requires for deeming a reality show contestant to be notable; contestants are not normally entitled to articles just for being contestants.) The article also has no reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability outside of this context; all of its sources (including the ones that led the creator to feel entitled to deprod) are directly affiliated with either Ms. Elise herself or the program. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have inaccurately detailed Wikipedia's requirement for deeming a reality show contestant notable. Please see The WikiProject: Idol series. The proof is here, here, here and here and here. Those are links to the "What links here" section of the templates for each season of Idol, listing the contestants, who have their own pages. The Voice (U.S. TV series) follows a similar format to American Idol, and is currently one of the highest rated shows on U.S. television, and each vocal contestant is given additional notability through music singles that are distributed worldwide via iTunes in addition to the millions of viewers that the show captures every day. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. These reliable, independent sources of Ms. Elise have been cited on the bottom of her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StormyNights84 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people you're linking to have all actually released albums on major labels after competing on American Idol, which is not the same thing as being notable for competing on American Idol. The rule was, is and continues to be that the winner is the only person who can have an article just because they were on the show; anybody else still has to establish notability by actually getting signed to a label, releasing an album, having a hit single and/or garnering real press coverage in real media — i.e., the exact same way as any other musician. And your article about Ms. Elise, as currently written, does not cite any sources that are reliable and independent of the subject; it cites NBC (the network which airs The Voice, ergo not independent), her own iTunes profile (not independent) and blog entries (not reliable) — it does not contain a single reference to any media outlet that is notable and reliable and independent enough of the subject to meet our rules around what constitutes an acceptable source. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 June 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) 01:44, 6 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm voting for keep. She has a history before the reality show on TV, and even though she was eliminated from The Voice this week, I do not think we have heard the last of her. Skoen (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about finding a reliable source or two, then? Notability isn't a judgement of whether we like the article topic or not — it's a judgement of whether the article is any good or not, and this simply is not an includable or properly referenced article as written. And we also keep or delete articles based on whether the topic has already established notability — not whether an individual user predicts that she'll become more notable in the future. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 20 June 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) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leota Toombs

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

This Disney employee was named a Disney Legend, but that honor does not appear to be particularly notable (considering all the redlinked honorees). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of third-party notability. And I concur with Clarityfiend about the notability of the award, given that there are as many as 18 winners some years it's basically a glorified employee of the month award. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture and she needs to be here as part of the latter mission. I see far more blue-links at Disney Legends than I do red... and as redlinks only mean that articles have not yet been written in Wikipedia as an unfinished work-in-progress, I do not see needing new articles as a suitable deletion argument. One might choose to disregard an in-house honor awarded to a mere handful out of over 100,000 employees, sure... but more difficult to disregard this person's contribution making it into the enduring record of American popular culture... her work being covered in multiple reliable sources and in sevarl books. Yes, related to that epitome of popular culture notability Disney... but logical, as THAT was her career and IS the assertion of notability. The Haunted Mansion: From the Magic Kingdom to the Movies ISBN 0786854197, Walt Disney Imagineering: A Behind the Dreams Look at Making the Magic Real ISBN 0786883723, The Hidden Magic of Walt Disney World: Over 600 Secrets of the Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Disney's Hollywood Studios, and Animal Kingdom ISBN 1605500631, Travel Orlando, Florida, Walt Disney World Resort and More ISBN 1605011762. Article requires improvement through use of readily available sources, but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not having access to those sources I would like to ask, do they discuss the article subject individually? or their work along with others more generally. I might compare the position of disney imagineer to that of a cast of a movie. Some positions may be notable (Director, producers, people that made notable contributions to the art of cinematography or special effects in the process) but others (assistant grips, catering assistants) may not be. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:42, 11 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant, substantial, independent coverage; she has fewer GNews hits than I do, and the hits appear to be almost entirely passing mentions. "Disney Legend" award ~~does~~ does not appear to be significant, and just about all of the notable awardwinners are notable independent of the award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If notability were being asserted per her meeting the GNG, then your argument about the required verifiability not being significant coverage might have merit. As that is not the assertion, that argument fails. As for she having fewer GNews hits than you, I politely point you to WP:GOOGLEHITS, which is not a provision of the WP:V required to confirm her work and award. If the award is granted as significnat, then we may look to WP:ANYBIO and require the available verifiability, without also comparing her to other persons and demanding that she have coverage and notability apart from the notable award. Guideline does not demand that any individual be notable for all parts of their life, if found notable for even one. Her contributions have made it into the enduring record. What is too often forgotten, is that while the GNG is always a nice yardstick by which to measure notability, it is not the only yardstick we use here at Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that "Disney Legend" is in any way a significant or notable award. Despite Schmidt's (who I have huge respect for) rationale, it fails on the assumption of significance in the award. "Disney Legend" appears to me, and this is an assumption as well, to be just like "Employee of the Month" except in this case it is a little more long term than a month. I can't see any significance of the award outside of the local Disney employee community. As that is all her notability is based on, I must !vote delete.--v/r - T P 14:31, 20 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia 'Nat' Tubanos

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

Not a notable person per WP:BIO. The article has only primary sources, or secondary sources with self-published material. The only real secondary source I found was this, which reports on all things Greek-Canadian. I wouldn't say it's a very good source. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Tubanos. It appears this article, with the nickname added, was created to prevent it from getting summarily deleted for recreation. Like all articles concerning Matt Campagna and company (this is his girlfriend or something), who in the past has frequently used Wikipedia as a vehicle for free advertisement and continues to do so, this article was created and almost solely edited by themselves. Atlan (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger than Weak Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Is also listed on IMDb as an actress. She also hosts a program on television (i.e. not just broadcasting on the web). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. I agree that you have improved the article somewhat by adding the source I suggested above. Ironic that it requires a listing at Afd for a Greek to swoop down and work on the article. However, it still fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG with those weak references. What is there is certainly not "significant independent coverage". With Tubanos' pervasive self-publishing on Canadian websites, it's hard to tell if the vanity piece at canada.greekreporter is actually independent. The other sources are either self-published or only tangentially relevant to the subject. Furthermore, IMDb is user-submitted and not a qualifier for notability guidelines. If nothing has changed regarding the televion show since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Tubanos, then that's still not notable. Seriously, if you need to persistently add yourself to Wikipedia everytime and no one else will do it, you likely shouldn't be on it.--Atlan (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never revealed my ethnic identity although I do speak the Greek language. I'm not Anastasia Tubanos (or a WP:PUPPET of). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that you were, sorry if it seemed that way. I am in fact quite certain that you are not her or even affiliated to her. If I would venture a guess, I'd say you are a Greek Cypriot. :)--Atlan (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speak French too but that doesn't mean I'm French either. You're not very good at this ethnic guessing game. Here are a bunch of articles that have been published by Anastasia Tubanos ->here<-. Almost all are technical "geek" oriented articles. Quite a list. They don't reflect notability on their own but it is another arrow in her armory. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can be from Pluto for all I care, it's totally irrelevant. But yes, very nice. More self-published work. I already noted Tubanos' pervasive self-publishing on Canadian websites.--Atlan (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Google News search finds lots of stuff BY her but nothing at all ABOUT her - which is what we require for inclusion in Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 12 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. By the looks of it, quite prolific and good at her job, but there's no coverage of her from third-party sources, so she fails the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:15, 22 June 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 18th Street Singers

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD closed as no consensus with no participation last year. There is simply no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The best I could manage is a local magazine listing them in a list of classical events in the Washington DC area. Whpq (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find indepentant, secondary sources to confer notability for this group. Angryapathy (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note An article was published about them in the Washington Post yesterday. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's a nice write up. But it is still only one instance of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 7 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient notability. The single write up, alone is not sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wanted to note I found this washington post piece on them dating from June 6, which was the day the AfD started so probably not seen.[72].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's the same article pointed out by Qrsdogg above. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops, you're right. I didn't !vote because this one seems borderline at best. I wouldn't have nominated myself, though.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:06, 22 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FSUM

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

Unable to locate significant reliable source coverage indicating notability. Both of the "reviews" cited by the article are much too short to be significant and are more comparable to mere directory entries; the sources' independence is also questionable. I was unable to locate any other reliable source coverage of this software; it thus fails the WP:GNG. Cybercobra (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 16:00, 6 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to see articles about free software be deleted because they are often useful for people seeking them out, regardless of notability criteria. Such programs get very little notice from third parties, in general, unless the program's author makes an effort to solicit such notice, so the usual criteria amounts to how much self-promotion has been done. However, the stub being considered for deleting in this case has so little content, and the program appears to be so marginally useful that little would be lost by the deletion. Dlw20070716 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The so called review for rbytes.net is too short and downright laughable, consisting mostly of manufacturer-supplied information followed by a standard boilerplate: "This file & disk management software is freeware, which means you can download and use FSUM 2.52 absolutely free. There's no need to buy the product. FSUM 2.52 supports English interface languages and works with Windows 98/XP/Vista. Latest FSUM 2.52 does not contain any spyware and/or advertise modules, allowing installing it with no worries concerning valuable information loss. Our website has thoroughly tested system utilities product FSUM 2.52, written the review and uploaded installation file (92K) to our fast server." Compare with what they say in their hashcalc review: "This development program is freeware, so you can download and use it absolutely free. HashCalc 2.02 supports English interface languages and works with Windows 98/XP/Vista. Latest HashCalc 2.02 does not contain any spyware and/or advertise modules, allowing installing it with no worries concerning valuable information loss. Our website has thoroughly tested development product HashCalc 2.02, written the review and uploaded installation file (468K) to our fast server. Downloading HashCalc 2.02 will take several seconds if you use fast ADSL connection." This site seems like a Softpedia wannabe. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:10, 14 June 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) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Baldry

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined as a PROD and BLPPROD'd before I arrived at the article, I was obliged to decline the BLPPROD based on that policy's strict nomination criteria. I added the passing reference I found when I looked myself, but was unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this presenter, which suggests that the article does not meet the general notability guideline. 3rd time at AfD, the last one was a delete in 2008, I'd suggest consideration of the question of whether salt should be applied here, I don't have a strong opinion on that. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains too much text even though it's support by ONE mention in a Reuters article. There's a chance more sources may surface, but it can go either way. Hopefully, a fourth nomination won't happen, and it can just be taken care once and for all. SwisterTwister (talk) 21:14, 15 June 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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Neverending

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

Non-notable, non-existent MMO. Any notability is derived from the fact that this game essentially became Flickr, with no independent notability. Sourced from fan pages and rumors, and even then there is no content. Certainly deserving of a footnote in the Flickr page (it is already mentioned there), but does not meet our criteria for inclusion on its own. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case could't a simple redirect to the Flicker article have been made instead.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but my redirection was undone. There is no content to merge, there is no notability, there should be no article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It existed. Who cares? Asteroid1717 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prior to this discussion, the nominator tried redirecting the article without an effort to merge its content, a backdoor attempt at deletion. The article was already reasonably well referenced, and I just added several more references. It would not be difficult to identify more from the Google searches above. While much of the online content related to the game is no longer available after so many years, the volume that still can be found reflects its influence and notability. - Eureka Lott 20:21, 12 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a frontdoor attempt at redirecting without merging. I already explained what I did in this AfD above, so I don't appreciate the negative comments on my actions. There is little content of value, and none that isn't mentioned on the Flickr page. The refs are mostly fan sites, or a dripping some of Flickr's notability down onto the game. The Techcrunch article doesn't even seem to be true, and their "tip" was likely an April Fools joke. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep insisting that most of the sources are fansites. There's one fansite that's cited a few times–it's as close as one can get to a primary source for a game that's been offline since 2004–but the majority of the references are from people notable enough to have their own articles. You're not saying that they're not reliable sources, are you? I can also assure you that the TechCrunch report is accurate, as I was one of the many people who experienced it firsthand. I have no idea why you'd assume it was false. - Eureka Lott 02:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - belongs in the development section of the Flickr article. The sourcing is not strong enough to support a separate article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a single in-depth review of this game. All coverage is incidental in Flickr books/sources or from obscure blog-like web sites. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:30, 18 June 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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Svnwiki

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:V. Zero reliable sources/non-trivial mentions --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly less notable than other articles that have been deleted. However, I don't see how deleting this article improves Wikipedia. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 05:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any policy or guideline you'd like to base your "keep" opinion on? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, it appears to fail the General notability guidelines: I can't turn up any reliable non-trivial 3rd party coverage of it. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:54, 7 June 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, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prime example of a software page that is useful but fails the (currently flawed) wikipedia guidelines for notability as applied to software. Wikipedia will be diminished in its usefulness to the software community by removing this article, merely because the software author has failed to solicit third party reviews. I consider it a strong example of why the wikipedia notability criteria needs to be amended for free software. Dlw20070716 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User Dlw20070716 has posted a similar rationale in several deletion discussions. That a software is "free" is not a good reason to include it in Wikipedia. A lot of money is made by companies selling support for otherwise free software, see Red Hat for example. Making Wikipedia an outlet for free advertising of such software is not seeing the forest for the trees. Wikipedia will be swamped by all the wannabes if we do that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:38, 14 June 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 close pending outcome of RFC/ArbCom case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism)

AfDs for this article:

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

Attack page on Rick Santorum. Needs to be blanked and deleted per Policy. KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal capacity) Someone please speedy close this. Attempting to disrupt an open Arbcom case by trying to get the page under discussion deleted is unconstructive at best and intentional disruption at worst, given the number of times KoshVorlon has been warned about disruption at this page. – iridescent 21:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSE NOW - This AfD is premature and distracting. It needs to be postponed AT LEAST until the RfC is done. (and this is despite me being in favor of deletion/modification)-- Avanu (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This was opened prior to the Arbcom case, therefore it's not disruptive. It's also policy for attack pages.

KoshVorlon'_Nal^uboutes _Aeria^Gloris 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: Arbcomm case opened at 14:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per previous AfDs, general consensus, and ongoing RfC about what to do with this page (which showed that whatever the consensus there's a clear desire to have some version of this page). Kosh's decision to start this also seems to be a bit tonedeaf in that Kosh has managed with his actions during this issue to irritate even people who sympathize with his position. (Also, I'm confused why Kosh apparently hasn't finished the AfD process - this is not linked to by the Santorum page). JoshuaZ (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP violation to a T. Fake word, fake neologism, an invented attack by a journalist who despised the person's politics and sought to google-bomb his "word" to the top of search engines. By having an article on the word as if it were real does nothing but perpetuate the original author's intent. What needs to be said about this is already covered at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality#Public reaction and criticism. Perhaps an article could be written on the creation of the fake word and the controversy that ensues, but that is a content decision best described at that talk page. Best to blow this one up and start fresh. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment Ongoing RfC there. Just let's follow and reflect on formal process in the RfC therein. In fact, personally I do not support to keep the article in the current state by this title (I would support rename per wp:NEO, to get it as in the sence of wp:BLP1E{just switch People notable for only one event for Word(neologism) notable for only one event}), but that should be (and had been) addressed all there. Reo ⁺ 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close without action pending ArbCom decision and outcome of RfC. Deletion is not warranted until both of those actions are complete. I'm also not convinced this is an attack page, but that's a separate argument. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:12, 13 June 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 List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. v/r - T P 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoutmon

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

No independent sources, no out-of-universe notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Other than a major character, there are sources. Fractyl (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. He's a main character of Digimon Xros Wars. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Being a major character in a series does not mean that an independent article is warranted. None of the sources are independent reliable sources either. As it stands, the article is just an OR plot summary. --Crusio (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters for lack of coverage by reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the character is already covered in List of Digimon Xros Wars characters and, given its notoriety in the plot and a simple article title, it is a plausible search term, so a redirect is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 15:36, 11 June 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, Kilo T 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jfgslo above. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters likely search term for the characters, the history will also be kept for any merge attempts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 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.