Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 October	21 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kobolds in gaming

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

Unsourced OR. Nothing but a list of trivia. Does not seem like an individually notable topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. However interesting the article may be, it does not seem incredibly notable and does appear to be original research. Possibly the article could be strengthened and resubmitted at a later time or something similar. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kobold-ly forth and merge a little bit to Kobold#In media. Kobolds are the Rodney Dangerfield of fantasy gaming cannon fodder and don't merit a separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no sourced content to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Kobolds in popular culture as per WP:MOS for a section spun out of Kobold and remove unsourced content OR delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tight Screw

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

Per the reasons in the previous AFD, WP:CRYSTAL it still has not begun and does not appear to be going to happen at all according to the long war journal[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be original research and lacks valid references. The first two references do not mention the title of this operation at all. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an existing operation, very covert though, it receives very little media attention, however the references do prove the existence of such an operation (Wiki id2 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Actually no, the references prove that the Pakistani government said this was going to happen, But it has not and is not likely to given recent statements from Islamabad. "Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Monday said that no preparations were underway for a military operation in the North Waziristan tribal region"[2] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a notable, ongoing operation, clearly contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. --SMS ^Talk 20:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SMS and Wiki id2, meets WP:GNG and is sufficient enough to bypass WP:CRYSTAL. Mar4d (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pretty notable, indeed. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Splash - tk 02:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extirpator of Idolatries

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

A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator apparently based on an imperfect understanding of WP:NFF. Essentially an as-yet-unreleased film cannot meet WP:NFF; there are no reliable sources present or found on a brief search and notability is neither asserted nor apparently present sufficient to meet the standard for notability of films. I'd be willing to believe that non-English sources will exist in the future when the film is released -- not yet, though. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable and only lists Facebook and personal website references. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I went to the production company's web site and used what is presumably the Spanish title of "proyecto extirpador" and could find nothing resembling coverage either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per lack of in depth coverage and as per WP:PROMOTION. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic lacks coverage enouhg to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lil Wayne. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not a Human Being II

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

Still not enough information to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Lil Wayne or I Am Not a Human Being. It's already been pushed back several times, we've all seen this before... Put down the WP:HAMMER! Zac (talk · contribs) 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lil Wayne. As the release date actually appears to be reasonably close, completely deleting it now would be a waste of time, as it will doubtless be recreated soon anyway. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lil Wayne per WP:NALBUMS. I do not think there is yet enough verifiable information to warrant a stand-alone article. However, this might be worth incubating as the title and a release date appear to have been confirmed. Cliff Smith 18:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or "Redirect to the Little Wayne article. LogicalCreator (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 24.177.193.10 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem's eighth studio album

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

WP:HAMMER, WP:NALBUMS. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you're going to delete this page, then you should delete this one too: I Am Not a Human Being II. There are enough references and information to keep the article. Also, it is Eminem's album. If you didn't see, it is already an notable album. SrGangsta (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Zac (talk · contribs) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and burn with fire. PUT DOWN THE WP:HAMMER! Zac (talk · contribs) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all very circumstantial and uncertain. It's too early: most of the record was not yet recorded at the time of the cited information. Even of the recorded material, artists almost always record more material than will be on the final album, and it's not uncommon for artists to junk entire recording sessions. I can summarise the facts in the article as follows:

Eminem's done some work on one or more tracks which may appear on his 8th album but we don't know what they're called or what they're about or what they sound like

50 Cent will appear either on the first single, or the second single, or possibly some other track, assuming Eminem (or his record label) doesn't change his mind

Dr Dre is involved "in some capacity", which could mean anything or nothing

No I.D. is also involved in some capacity

People have heard some recent material by Eminem, which may or may not be on the upcoming album, and made some vague comments

I think this fails the guidelines which require meaningful information about an upcoming release. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Completely speculative and vague, fails WP:HAMMER. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS: No title, no track listing, and no release date. Hammertime, indeed. Information about this unreleased album should remain at the artist's article for now. I do not think there is yet enough verifiable information to warrant a stand-alone article. This might be worth incubating, though. Cliff Smith 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not averse to the idea that some albums might dodge the WP:HAMMER and warrant inclusion before not only release, but before an announced name. But those are the exception, and this isn't one of them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is based on this statement: “I’m kinda getting into my next record a little bit." teammathi (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge rather than delete. Likely that article will be brought back in future. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 15:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be brought back as "Eminem's eighth studio album" but under the actual title of the album. teammathi (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eminem. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Young Jeezy. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get Right (Young Jeezy song)

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

Non-notable single by Young Jeezy. It was just released on 11 October, and given the record of Jeezy, we shouldn't keep this per WP:NSONGS (We cannot redirect it to the album's article because it doesn't exist). — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Billboard charts will be updated on this Monday. The song already had good response with sales on iTunes Store. Also, the song marks the announcement of his new album and the feud with Gucci Mane. SrGangsta (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until chart information is available, we won't know nothing about its performance. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard charts are actually updated every Thursday, so I don't know where you are getting that information from. Zac (talk · contribs) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Young Jeezy it simply fails WP:NSONGS. Zac (talk · contribs) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Jeezy per WP:NSONGS. Even if this does chart, that would not automatically make this song worthy of a stand-alone article. However, this is a probable search term and redirects are cheap. Cliff Smith 18:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Young Jeezy per WP:NSONGS. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Marchick

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

Insufficiently notable person. Fails WP:BIO in that he has not "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and does not pass any sub-criterion such as WP:AUTHOR or otherwise achieve notability.

Mr Marchick falls in the category I call "ordinary accomplished person". He is accomplished and is having a fine career, but a very large number of people are similarly accomplished. Whether we want to go down the road of beginning to include such people is something that we ought to consider very carefully, I think.

From a purely policy standpoint, he's not notable, I wouldn't say. Let's drill down.

He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Mind you that there is an unmentioned level here, Undersecretary, so he was three levels down from the Secretary. A distinguished position to be sure, but it says here "Assistant Secretary of State is a title used for many executive positions in the United States State Department", and he was a level below that. So unless we want to greatly expand WP:DIPLOMAT this does not confer notability.
He had desk jobs in the White House, the Office of the United States Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce. This is nice but is very far from conferring notability. During this time, important things happened (North American Free Trade Agreement, creation of World Trade Organization) and Mr Marchick presumably did some office work connected with that, which is also nice but not germane for our purposes.
He was a partner at a big law firm, a lobbyist, and is now a director at a large asset management firm, which are useful things to be, but not germane for our purposes.
He's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is good but the Council does have 4,700 members.

In my view, his notability would hinge on one of these (quite slim) threads:

He co-wrote a published book ~~(at 43 pages it's really only a white paper I would infer)~~. It may (or may not) be erudite, but it's not very well-known ~~and hasn't garnered any reviews that I could find~~. Fails WP:AUTHOR by a mile; one might consider it more of an academic paper, but Mr Marchick also fails WP:ACADEMIC by a big margin.
He's published pieces in the Far Eastern Economic Review, Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal (no refs given, but let's assume that that's true). The first is out of business but the latter two are important publications. I don't know what the articles were or how many, but there's no notability criteria for writing newspaper or magazine articles per se, except WP:AUTHOR which he doesn't meet.
Finally, one could say "Yes, he doesn't meet WP:BIO or any of its sub-criteria in any one activity, but he's done a little of this and a little of that and taken together he's notable". I wouldn't agree with that at all, this would be a new thing for the Wikipedia, and if we want to have a policy to confer notability on persons who are just generally somewhat accomplished, we ought to create WP:ACCOMPLISHED or something as a sub-criteria for WP:BIO (and be prepared to handle an awful lot articles for doctors, lawyers, business vice-presidents, local dignitaries, etc.). The community hasn't seen fit to do that and I'd not be favor of doing it here.

I get that he's a big shot, has talked with people who are notable, is in "the club", and so forth, but I'm not seeing the Wikipedia notability here.

(N.B.: there may (or may not) be some content problems with this article, and his current employer has had a hand in the making of this article, but before tackling that I want to see if he's notable, which I don't think he is.) Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Searching on this subject and then peeling back many WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS left me with very little indicating this subject might approach WP:GNG. And while quite impressive, he fails WP:ANYBIO. I agree with the very detailed nomination's' rationale that the subject also fails various alternative criteria. I'm also confident that if we actually had a WP:NJOURNALIST, this subject would fail that as well. JFHJr (㊟) 06:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am collecting what RSes exist about Marchik. Found this article in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XLV, 2007, pp. 1042–44 on his book; says it is really good. Also says it is 190 pages. Hosting that article per fair use to facilitate discussion. The jstor link is [3]. There is a capsule review here. The book is cited in a report in the Journal of Homeland Security. Per this US government site, the guy is on the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission. Sounds important. He testified before the US senate on behalf of Carlyle group. Carlyle is the third-largest private-equity firm in the world, after TPG and Goldman, raising $40 billion in 2011. The person they sent to the US Senate to speak on their behalf was Marchik. When they hired him, it was reported prominently in the Washington Post and Financial times (pay link). His wedding, of all things, was covered in the New York Times Style section. His book is the course material for a law course at Georgetown University. And all this after completely ignoring his work as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. A Google books search is returning so many hits it will take me awhile to winnow them and collect the information.

The various categories such as author, diplomat and so on are meant to be examples, not an exhaustive list every notable person has to fit into. The central notability guideline is non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. I have posted multiple, independent, reliable sources. Some can be thought primary, but the book reviews and other articles are secondary sources. Multi-faceted notability is notability for WP:GNG purposes. Churn and change (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, he (co-)wrote Foreign Investment and National Security which is 43 pages, but US National Security and Foreign Direct Investment is another entity, which is 190 pages. He is also only a co-writer on that. WP:AUTHOR does allow for "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (he fails all the other WP:AUTHOR criteria by a lot). Is he an "important figure"? No, he's not. Is he widely cited by peers? He's not, as far as I can see. ("Important" and "widely" are subject to interpretation, but I think it's safe to say that Mr Marchik was not that type of author they had in mind when they wrote that clause.) Now, there's a caveat, which I think is part of what you're getting at: if (let us say) only 20 people read his book but one of them was the Secretary of State and she based policy decisions on what he wrote then he could be arguably considered "important". It is in this and only this way that he could possibly be considered important as a writer, I think. So: did the State Department base policy on his writings? I'd like to see evidence of that. It's not something we can just assume. I'm even more skeptical since the review says "The economic analysis is very simple minded". (I'm not seeing the "says it is really good" beyond being well written; the review is mixed I'd say and makes it sound rather polemical more than anything ("The important thing to note is that the book has a strong message: allow free international investment flows... [and] minimize Congressional oversight...").) (Hmmmm where have I heard that before?)

Stuff like "is on the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission. Sounds important." leave me pretty cold, actually. I mean everybody does something. Is he more "important" than (let us say) the Director for New York State Operations for UPS? He's not. After all, UPS is a large and very famous company that is a very key part of the communications infrastructure of the United States. And New York is big; as big and rich as the Netherlands and a lot bigger and richer than Sweden or Greece. It's a very important job, and how well he does it materially affects the economy of New York State and the lives of its many citizens. Not to mention that he has supervisory authority over thousands of employees and responsibility for a multi-million dollar budget. Far, far more important than Marchick and this is not even arguable I don't think. The problem is, if he's in, so is the director of California operations, and Texas, and so on, and then you have his boss (Vice-President for Northeast Operations) and of course the CEO and CFO and CTO and board chairman and probably a bunch of people, so you've talking several score people just for UPS. Do we want to go down this path? Maybe we do, but if so why has no one written this into any policy?

Similarly, he had a desk job in the State Department (I don't know the department's table of organizations, but I think it likely there are hundreds of people there at his level, and if not then certainly several score). This really does count as nothing (and by that I don't mean that he's a worthless person, just that this means nothing as regards the Wikipedia notability standards).

Yes Carlyle Group is big and important and I'd grant its president notability, but how deep into the lower ranks do we want to go with this? They sent him to testify to the Senate. Well somebody had to go. An awful lot of people testify on Capitol Hill. Are they notable? His promotion was mentioned in the Post (probably briefly; link doesn't work, ditto the link re the Georgetown course syllabus). I get that, but passing mentions are not sufficient to create a biographical article, I don't think. His wedding was briefly noted in the Times society pages... yeesh. I already granted that he's a the kind of person who would have their wedding reported in the society pages, but, ultimately, so what? Are there any articles about this person as opposed to brief press notes basically mentioning his name? There aren't, that I have found.

Look, I think I can show the problem here. How should the article, if kept, open? ""David M. Marchick is ______..." Well, is what? Right now it says "David M. Marchick is an American lawyer and former diplomat..." but that's not right. He's a partner in a white-shoe law firm... so are a lot of people. Has he done anything notable as a lawyer? No. He's not a diplomat ("A diplomat is a person appointed by a country to conduct diplomacy with another state or international organization") as near as I can tell; he's a mid-level government functionary. So what is he? "David M. Marchick is an American writer..." based on co-writing one book that did not exactly set the world on fire? Maybe "David M. Marchick is an American C-list Beltway personality..." or "David M. Marchick is a generally accomplished and well-educated person with a successful career..."? Or what? Help me out here. Because I'm not seeing this person's notability, is what. Herostratus (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Despite assertions in the above !vote, unless third party coverage exists, we can't just imagine his government roles are "important," and primary sources don't establish any importance. Testifying as a spokesperson is in the normal course of his duties in his Carlyle group; a record about having done so might show the topic of testimony or the company itself is noteworthy, but not its spokesperson, at least not without coverage substantially about him. That aside, his books have been reviewed, and so he might most clearly approach WP:AUTHOR; his textbook might be additive to WP:ACADEMIC, but it's far below that threshold on its own. What we have is very little in the way of biographical detail of objective importance as shown in coverage by parties that are not actually associated with the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not limited to people who are easily pigeonholed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets guidelines for notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Which one? Even if in spirit, not letter? I've edited the article to remove cites to press releases and several primary sources that are unsuitable to indicate any particular importance or appropriate overall weight for the claims asserted. There are still some rather grand claims that rest on crap sources such as WP:BLPSPS and (likely more) press release material. At this point, I think a good, hard look at WP:42 is in order. JFHJr (㊟) 16:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request re-listing so that a clearer consensus might emerge. JFHJr (㊟) 19:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep. Coverage of him has been WP:ROUTINE announcements about hirings, minor quotations in articles and his wedding announcement. These must not be considered in a notability discussion. A search turned up nothing beyond that. I find no significant coverage of the man himself. Hence it fails the WP:GNG requirements and other more specific criteria for authors already discussed above. Some people arguing keep say that his status as an executive at Carlyle Group confers notability upon him; yet notability cannot be inherited from an organization. See WP:ORGIN. Therefore this argument fails. His book has not been widely reviewed or taken notice of. He may have testified before the Senate, but I find no secondary reports on the testimony. --Batard0 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep based on additional sources found by Uzma below that clearly demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. It's crystal clear now. --Batard0 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral on this because it seems like there is a potential for this page to develop, but as it stands I see no point of notability that justifies the page. Finding references to him is one thing - but what is he notable for? Why does WP require an entry on him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflo (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like nom is stuck on the "is he an author," "is he a diplomat" questions. Notability is simply non-trivial (not necessarily in-depth) coverage in multiple independent, reliable, third-party sources (see WP:BASIC), with sources sufficient to provide enough material for a start-class article. Marchick meets that, and that is all that is relevant to this Afd. There isn't a need for in-depth coverage in a single place; multiple references which together provide enough material is good. In this case that does exist. Churn and change (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines do require some in-depth coverage; the WP:GNG say "significant coverage" that addresses the subject "directly and in detail," not trivial coverage. WP:BASIC speaks of "non-trivial" coverage. I do not see any real difference between "in-depth" and "significant" coverage. Perhaps you could argue that coverage is significant but not in-depth if it is composed of passing mentions in a wide variety of reliable sources, which may accord with WP:BASIC. And yet in my view these qualify as "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources," which "may not be sufficient to establish notability". If you have evidence of significant coverage beyond the routine (wedding announcements and job moves are routine, I think, as are quotes in articles that don't focus on him) please let me know and I'll change my vote. --Batard0 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NY Times coverage is not a "wedding announcement"; it is coverage by a newspaper reporter in the style section. The book review is in a journal (Journal of Economic Literature), and yes, authors do inherit notability from books (inherited notability doesn't work just the other way around, from author to book). The book is used in a law course in a university, as noted above, and that counts. His coverage in Washington Post and Financial Times are about his appointment at Caryle; they are not in-depth but neither are they trivial. Taken together (there are more hits on Google search related to the Senate testimony, by the way) they provide sufficient non-trivial, reliable, third-party coverage for a start-class article. The nom's rationale, that the person has to be an expert at something and not some kind of a jack-of-all-trades, is not the WP criterion for notability of people. Churn and change (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to disagree about the wedding announcement; in my view, that's what it is. The NYT publishes wedding announcements of people it considers notable enough for wedding announcements, including lots of lawyers, bankers, politicians, etc. I don't think the NYT's judgment of the notability of his wedding is anything beyond trivial coverage. It's not even as detailed as many other wedding stories published by the paper. See here for the section, and plenty more of this. To take a random example, does this article qualify Hannah Meyers, an intelligence researcher at the New York Police Department, as in any way notable? I know you're not asserting that the wedding announcement alone makes Marchick notable, but I would argue that it's so trivial that it ought to be ignored. See WP:ROUTINE, although that applies to events, not people. Second, where does it say in WP:AUTHOR that an author inherits notability from his/her books? I sometimes stupidly miss things, but I can't find this. Is it in a different guideline? The coverage about his appointment at Carlyle is routine and doesn't rise to the level of significant, in my view, even in combination with other trivial sources. Journalists are more or less forced to cover these things. Carlyle is a major company, and Marchick is in an executive position. I'd draw a distinction between this kind of coverage (based on a press release from Carlyle, no doubt) and the sort of non-trivial coverage where an journalist at a reliable publication decided independently that Marchick was worth profiling, doing a story about, etc. If our interpretation of the standards is too lax, we'll set a precedent where pretty much any minor executive at a large company warrants an article, because most of them have been the subject of such routine comings-and-goings articles. Having said this, I'm still willing to change my vote if something that treats the subject in a significant way turns up. --Batard0 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't answer the WP:OSE arguments. As to an author inheriting notability from a book, check WP:AUTHOR; a notable author is one who writes notable books. Note the book is a text for at least one course at a reputed institution. It has a major review (debating what the review says is not an Afd discussion). If you go to books.google.com and search, you will see mentions to Marchik in [4] (Palgrave MacMillan), [5] (W.W. Norton), [6] (Kluwer Law: pages 51, 168, 169), [7] (Edward Elgar: page 57 in biblio and a bunch of other pages, check with a search), [8] (Peterson Institute for International Economics, pages 192, 200, 202), [9] (Edward Elgar), [10] (Yale University Press), [11] (Cengage learning—a textbook in its 13th edition, clearly instructors are using it to teach) and still more, too numerous to mention here. If an author's work is notable, the author is notable per WP:AUTHOR. Considering that he is also many other things, and considering RSes have covered his work in those fields (appointment to Carlyle, a previous house testimony here at a reliable third-party source, William Mitchell College of Law publication) he passes our notability threshold. Churn and change (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        With regard to the WP:OSE argument, I'm only attempting to show that these wedding announcements cover insignificant, non-notable people. This doesn't necessarily mean that Marchick himself must be non-notable; only that these announcements themselves don't mean much in those terms. In other words, I am not saying "other people who are covered by wedding announcements don't have wikipedia articles, so Marchick shouldn't either," which would be a WP:OSE argument. Rather, I'm saying simply that Marchick's announcement itself can't be taken seriously when considering notability because it's trivial and fits in the context of other trivial coverage of weddings. I don't think this should be controversial, although as always I could be wrong. As to the WP:AUTHOR argument, I accept as a given that the book in question is notable based on your sources (although this probably tenuous given the WP:BK requirement for multiple and non-trivial coverage, which could be argued against here, and it is only taught in one institution as far as we know, while the requirement is "the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs"). But as I said, I leave that aside for now and accept that it's notable. Marchick has written one notable book. We agree on that, right? Now, where in WP:AUTHOR do I get to the part where this one notable book makes the author notable? I'll go through the criteria. First, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Do the smattering of references we find in a Google Books search constitute "widely cited"? I argue that they don't, but this is a judgment call. I could only find 50-odd non-duplicative citations of Marchick in books (as opposed to magazines) in a search. I don't think this shows he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers. The second criterion, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique," hasn't been asserted or shown to be true, so I'll assume for now that this doesn't apply. The next criterion says "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." First, I would argue that this book is not significant nor well-known. Second, even if it were significant and well-known, it has not been shown to be the subject of a book, a film or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. One review has been cited; no others seem to exist. So it must fail this criterion barring new evidence that shows otherwise. The third criterion says "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." His work plainly has not "become a significant monument". This seems to apply more to visual artists who put on exhibitions, etc. The final criterion applies to academics, which is outside the scope of this discussion unless someone would like to go through the academic notability requirements as they apply to Marchick. To sum up, as far as I can tell, the assertion that an author is notable for their work under WP:AUTHOR is true to a degree. But I don't think this particular author's work is itself notable enough to make the author notable on a reading of the guidelines. The house testimony also isn't convincing to me as evidence of notability, as discussed earlier. Saying that it's given substantial coverage in the William Mitchell College of Law publication doesn't do it for me. He's discussed in passing in a footnote on page 2, unless I'm missing something. This is clearly trivial coverage if there ever was such a thing. --Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I oppose relisting. The thread has already run for 12 days, which practically means it has been relisted once. There is sufficient discussion, and sufficient information unearthed, to decide for good. Deletion is not necessarily based on consensus, it is based on policy and guidelines. One doesn't relist just because there was a lengthy discussion; an Afd tag has real consequences: it scares editors off the page (why put in what could vanish tomorrow), and it leaves readers with a vague idea there is something not fine with the subject. There isn't anything stuck here, since we don't need a consensus to decide an Afd. Here are the sources collected in one place: Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XLV, 2007, pp. 1042–44, an in-depth review of his book, here, Journal of Homeland Security, citation to book, [12] (Palgrave MacMillan), [13] (W.W. Norton), [14] (Kluwer Law: pages 51, 168, 169), [15] (Edward Elgar: page 57 in biblio and a bunch of other pages, check with a search), [16] (Peterson Institute for International Economics, pages 192, 200, 202), [17] (Edward Elgar), [18] (Yale University Press), [19] (Cengage learning—a textbook in its 13th edition, clearly instructors are using it to teach), Washington Post and Financial times (pay link), New York Times Style section, book as the course material for a law course at Georgetown University. That coverage, largely non-trivial (a footnote is not trivial since it is a citation and one should look at the cited material to see the coverage), meets WP:BASIC, which asks for reliable, third-party, non-trivial coverage, and nothing else. Relisting is when sufficient discussion has not occurred, not when there is lack of consensus. Churn and change (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without actual relisting, this transclusion does not appear on the AfD today list. Listing thus increases the chances of neutral, informed !votes. What's to fear? There's no rush. JFHJr (㊟) 01:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed -- relist and get fresh eyes. --Batard0 (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to relist, seems this is stuck in the middle and fresh eyes will help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from nominator. To summarize from this point, I think the following is probably true and more or less established:
- Subject probably does does not meet the general WP:GNG or WP:BIO criteria (this is arguable, depending on how you parse various clauses, but probably true IMO). That's OK, there are other sub-criteria we can then look at.
- Subject does not meet any criterion of WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:ACADEMIC. This seems fairly well established I think.
- There is no WP:ATTORNEY, WP:LOBBYIST, WP:EXECUTIVE, WP:CONSULTANT, or WP:OFFICIAL (possibly there should be). If there were, it's very doubtful Marchick would meet them -- he's done all these things, but not been at the very top in any of them.
- He does arguably meet criteria #1 (and only #1) of WP:AUTHOR "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited..." He co-wrote one book, U.S. National Security and Foreign Direct Investment. A number of books do cite this book. And here you'll see Brent Scowcroft calling it "very important", Larry Summers calling it "an insightful analysis", and Bill Emmott strongly recommending it. It did get a full review in the Journal of Economic Literature. (Incidentally his co-author, Edward M. Graham, is probably a lot more notable.)

WP:AUTHOR criterion #1 is kind of vague, but it is a valid criterion. We do have articles on writers who wrote basically one book (Malcolm Lowry and (sort of) Henry Roth for instance). I can't really rate U.S. National Security and Foreign Direct Investment up with Under the Volcano or Call It Sleep, though, and only being a co-writer bothers me quite a bit. (FWIW the other author, Edward M. Graham, is probably a lot more notable.)

- There is sufficient material to write at least a brief article (primary sources can be used for this, judiciously) so this is not a deal-killer.
- Finally, the point that he doesn't meet WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ATTORNEY or WP:LOBBYIST or WP:EXECUTIVE or WP:CONSULTANT or WP:OFFICIAL (and assuming he doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR) but can at least be considered under each of them, and this has some bearing, is reasonable. I don't agree with that but it's not unreasonable.

It's a tough question and kind of on the bubble. Moving David Marchick to U.S. National Security and Foreign Direct Investment might well be the best solution. We could still include a paragraph on Marchick, and this would give the opportunity to include a paragraph on the probably more notable Edward M. Graham. (I'd be willing to do the work if this course is taken.) Herostratus (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- This is academic, really, but if we were all in agreement that he didn't meet the WP:GNG requirement (I don't think this is the case), but at the same time agreed that he did meet WP:AUTHOR or some other sub-guideline (also not the case), would this person be notable? I was under the impression that GNG overrides the other guidelines. In other words, you can't not meet the GNG criteria but still be notable, and the sub-guidelines are attempts to clarify how articles on specific people and subjects qualify under the GNG. Am I incorrect on this? --Batard0 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG specifies inclusion criteria, not exclusion criteria (check the wording at the top of WP:NOTABILITY: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."). On the right, in this case, is WP:BASIC and, if that is not met, WP:AUTHOR and so on. For some odd reason, for academics, politicians and business people there is usually more resistance than for actors, musicians, educators and the like. Churn and change (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me from this that something can be notable under WP:GNG or any of the other listed guidelines. So GNG does not in any way "override" the subject-specific guidelines. I get your point about the criteria being inclusion criteria, but to me that also implicitly makes them exclusion criteria. By defining what is notable, you also by necessity are defining what is not notable (everything else). But I agree of course that it's a set of inclusion criteria and doesn't explicitly talk about what's excluded. I haven't noticed that there's more resistance to notability for businesspeople, academics and politicians, but if there is and it's not justified, perhaps it'd be worthwhile proposing a revision to the guidelines that would make it easier to establish notability for people like this. --Batard0 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG due to insufficient in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject passes WP:BASIC the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR or any other criterion is irrelevant except for the exclusions of WP:NOT. This subject passes WP:BASIC and is not excluded by WP:NOT. Churn and change (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The closer may be wondering why the back and forth over a seemingly short article. A likely purpose of the article's posting on 1 June 2010‎ was to bring to light (to out) that Marchick was "a lobbyist for the Halliburton Corporation during the series of controversies that involved the company during the Iraq War,"[20] which may affect his current position as Carlyle Group managing director for external affairs (which requires external support of the public and a good public image). I seem to recall there was a trend in outing such people within Wikipedia a while back. However, motives aside, the topic clearly has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of David Marchick as established by Churn and change and his bio shows a career that will be covered by reporters.[21]. Starting from 1998 through 1997, we get:
Marchick graduated from the University of California, San Diego in 1988.^[1] While at the University, Marchick was the student body president.^[1] In 1991, Marchick served as a policy analysts in the International Business and Economics program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan Washington, D.C., foreign policy think tank.^[2] Two years later, when he was 26, Marchick became the deputy director of presidential correspondence for then then newly elected U.S. President, Bill_Clinton#First_term.2C_1993.E2.80.931997.^[3] As a "highly paid Clinton aide ", Marchick's January 20, 1993 starting of $32,000 rose to $55,000 two months later.^[3] In May 1996, Marchick change his job from being an aide to United States Secretary of Commerce Mickey Kantor to that of a deputy assistant secretary for trade development.^[4]^[5] As deputy assistant secretary, Marchick traveled to Japan to monitor progress related to a 1995 bilateral agreement on auto and auto parts between the United States and Japan.^[6]

^ ^a ^b John Lynn Smith (May 28, 1988). "UC San Diego Outgrowing Its Science-Only Reputation". Sacramento Bee. p. A5. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
^ Sam Armstrong (January 2, 1991). "Three's a Crowd in Trade Talks". Journal Of Commerce. p. 6A. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b George Archibald (March 7, 1993). "Generation lapse Untested youth core of White House staff". Washington Times. p. A1. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
^ Al Kamen (May 17, 1996). "Out Of The Norm: A New King Of Quotes'". Washington Post. p. A21. Retrieved October 27, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
^ James Hannah (November 23, 1996). "Bosnia Seeks Help In Rebuilding Economy One Year Has Passed Since Dayton Accord Signed". Akron Beacon Journal. p. B2. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
^ "U.S. officials to visit Japan to monitor auto accord". Japan Economic Newswire. January 24, 1997.

From 1997 through 2012, there is plenty of reliable source material from which to develop a stand alone article on the David Marchick topic. Meets WP:GNG. Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing all this research. I've changed my !vote to Keep based on it. Perhaps one day you'll educate us all on the secrets of this wizardry, given that it seems some of these aren't available online. It'd be great if there were new ways and other places we could search for sourcing, unless it's the case that I simply didn't look deeply enough at the results in the usual places. --Batard0 (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd bundle of channel lineups

(View AfD · Stats)

Obviously, these articles violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE (or WP:NOTDIR) ~~because a page must not be mere table, no matter a prose. No prose will help them be encyclopedic, which is opposite effect for season articles, like Cheers (season 1).~~ Consensus from WP:articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and WP:articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) said that channel lineups (or whatever users call them) are not suitable for Wikipedia, so same can go to them here. Information may be dated and prone to edit warring, but these are not main reasons for deletion.

NOTE: I have agreed to require approval from a mentor before AFD. I have this page approved by one of my mentors, Dr.K, before you say anything about me. I hope this does not affect this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDIR and prior AFDs, though the nominator here appears to misstate the precise reasons for deletion ("a page must not be mere table" [sic] is not correct; the kind of information here is the issue, the presentation format of table versus prose is irrelevant). postdlf (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry; I cannot adequately or concisively explain it. I stroke that part out, just in case. Here goes: "These pages violate the policy because their main purposes are helping readers direct them to whichever channel number the network is located." Hope that's relevant. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all, Standard "not a directory, not TV Guide" applies. Good to see this junk finally getting cleaned up. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons previously stated. Also, this would be a nightmare to maintain. - MrX ^(TALK) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – completely inappropriate information. Channel lineups are directories and consist of trivial content that fails notability. There's also the problem of them changing so much, maintenance is an issue. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, and the comments I've made at those pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and I suppose WP:USEFUL by virtue of being a prime example of what isn't. I have an AfD process on going in this field at the moment and use my reasoning in that place here doktorb _words^deeds 02:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note: I have created another AfD which is similar to this one. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it makes me sad to think of all the manhours that were put into all of these lists making and maintaining such pretty charts- and how all of that effort could have been creating and enhancing actual encyclopedic content. delete per NOTDIR and many also blatantly fail WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some fwiw, some of these are clearly well-sourced and encyclopedic and some are clearly impossible to ever become so, but I am not going through the list to pick which are which; and my disagreement with the notdir argument has already been stated and echoed. I do applaud these two bundle noms for getting all the articles in the category without much ado. I note that apparently List of La Liga broadcasters will make the cut because it is a list of channels with the same content due to contracting with the same provider, not a list of channels with the same network due to contracting with multiple providers. Apparently List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom will make the cut because it is a list of channels in the same country from four networks instead of a list of channels in the same country from one network (although with the Sky merger that's debatable). And all the other lists will make the cut because they are distinguishable from these for other reasons. KEEPERS, TAKE NOTE: Apparently if you want the content (back) on WP, the best route is to make it a comparative list of channels available in one country, tabulated by provider/network, rather than make it a list of channels from one provider/network. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC) same primary editor as User:12.153.112.21. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just insane that it's even considered to be deleted. If it gets deleted I also stop contributing to Wikipedia all together. What a waste of my time and the energy. A big thumbs down when it gets deleted! -- C0re1980 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a valid vote to say "I spent a long time writing out television channels, therefore the article is important". I could spend a long time writing the bus timetables for northern England and after a week of doing so, an administrator would delete the article within an hour. That's because Wikipedia has to limit what it hosts. There's a television listing service through your remote control, there's no need for Wikipedia to host it. doktorb _words^deeds 16:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone please stop using dismissive, and thus uncivil, examples. My remote-controlled television listing service (a true EPG, providing program listings) does not allow me or any researcher to compare or contrast the lineups of other providers. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using listings to compare services, and draw conclusions from that, is against WP:OR. doktorb _words^deeds 16:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning those using WP as an educational resource, not those editing WP. Which is why I said "researcher", not "editor". --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Importantly, this is why the various historical television lineups by season are kept - there are external sources that make the comparison between how networks did based on competing shows for encyclopedic value. I have never seen any similar thing done between competiting cable providers. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like this? --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely because (American) network prime time lineups are discussed by reliable sources that makes listing them valid; it's also because the scheduling by the originating broadcast network is integral to the shows' histories (not to mention the networks') and is often credited with making or breaking the show's success, both in terms of what the show is competing against on other networks and in terms of the scheduled slot in and of itself (e.g., Friday night death slot). The same cannot be said for the relationship of a cable network to all the many hundreds of cable providers that carry it. How many carriers around the world carry CNN? MTV? It is typical for most cable providers to carry all major cable networks, to the extent that the only time it makes news is when contract disputes interfere with that default. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EFFORT, "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines." These articles still fail Wikipedia policy, WP:NOTDIR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following this reasoning discographies, filmographies etc. should be deleted as well. All are so called lists or directories in your definition of a directory -- C0re1980 (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that is the case you are able to create a deletion article for discussion doktorb _words^deeds 11:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I define directories different, so no I won't. But be my guest and demotivate more users. -- C0re1980 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is unfortunate if any editors become discouraged because work in these List of station .. articles are being deleted. But, there are gazillion potential and stub articles about Television in X that they can provide actually encyclopedic and interesting content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Irwin

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN because she doesn't have widespread coverage as a local politician; all Google News hits except for one are voter's guide type non-neutral sources from the Ventura County Star, doesn't pass WP:GNG; as an aside, is an unsourced BLP Go Phightins! 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Thousand Oaks, California. The mayor or city councilperson of a town like Thousand Oaks does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, and I could not find significant independent coverage about her as needed for WP:ANYBIO. The article smells strongly of having been written by one of her kids (who are all named in the article, along with the helpful detail that "Jacqui Irwin has the largest campaign signs in town.") --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than redirect. Without a reliable source there is no basis for a redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Newark Unified School District. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Junior High School

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

nonnotable school below HS level, generally redirected to school district, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. redirect declined, so i put this up for discussion in case it has notable features not yet mentioned in the article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newark Unified School District per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and blank) to Newark Unified School District per nom and as per usual procedure for nn schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for closing admin: If this is closed as redirect, please remember to add the {{R from school}} template to the redirect page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Redirect as above. I wasn't sure about a redirect because I thought the name might not be unique, but this does appear to be the only school so named, so a redirect is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newark Unified School District as per standard practise. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per long-standing consensus for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akheilos

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

No sources, ridiculously small for an article of its age, and, further research reveals almost no information. This article is on a completely unnotable subject Marigu goke (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 20. Snotbot t • c » 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. There is no Akheilos in the Iliad (check it), nor are there any sharks. Churn and change (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. Bleh. Hoax indeed. In addition to Churn and change's comments, there is no reference to this name in Google Scholar in any capacity, which almost certainly forecloses any important role in anything in classical mythology. The name was used as a character in one piece of modern fiction, but neither the book nor its author appear to be notable. And, of course, this article's creator has been indef blocked for over a year as a vandalism-only account. Accordingly, I think this can be considered "pure vandalism". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a weird one. There's this unreliable website that could be repeating the hoax. I'm not sure, but it looks fishy. I thought maybe it was an alternate spelling for Achelous, but the Greek doesn't match up. I can't find anything in books, and clearly some of the claims about the Iliad, etc. are false. --Batard0 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment: It makes a separate claim for his origins and his story. I still wasn't able to find any mention of him in the Theoi sources, mind you, I only skimmed them. But, even according to the quote on the Theoi page, Akheilos is unimportant. ᶲAstridᶲ • ^{(Let's do this!)} 21:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible. The now-indeff'ed editor who originally created this article had other material deleted as copyvios from that site. Of course, this article doesn't match the Theoi sources, but he also made up quite a bit apparently whole-cloth. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at his Contribs, it looks like he might be using material from Rick Riordan lore, which, as pertaining to Greek mythology, muddles the canon up, and adds what is essentially fanfic. ᶲAstridᶲ • ^{(Let's do this!)} 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 01:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Shandler

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

Highly promotional article with nothing to actually verify the man's notability. Google seems to confirm that he's a writer for USA Today--but existence does not equal notability. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not much, but several books seem to discuss him and his work [22], [23], [24] and some newspaper coverage, [25], [26], [27], [28] and several others. I think this passes WP:GNG. The article needs to be fixed though. Hoppingalong (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My search turned up enough mention in sources. AutomaticStrikeout 02:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So did mine. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Marginal notability built more on articles that the subject has written, less so on coverage about the subject by other sources. On balance, a keeper, but it's a fairly close call. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iron fist fighting

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

Completely un-sourced, Non-notable, or encyclopedic value. Theman244 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this meets WP:GNG I cant find the significant coverage in RS's. Mt king ^(edits) 20:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability. My search didn't find significant independent coverage of this subject. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any reliable sources to support any claims of notability. The article has no sources and makes no real claims of notability. Existing is not sufficient for notability. Mdtemp (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could'nd find any reasonable quantity of reliable sources to back up notability of the topic. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Under either name I found nothing other than a youtube video and the equivalent, and not much at that. Nothing in a Reliable Source that would pass WP:GNG. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Herriott

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

Bigfoot hunter fails WP:GNG and requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Local awards do not establish notability or importance. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is simply no significant coverage in reliable sources:WP:GNG. I was unable to verify the most significant claim "hosted the Disney Channel's First Season of Walt Disney World Inside Out" as one link was dead and the other failed to fully load. Kooky2 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bigfoot doesn't exist and neither should this article. Utterly fails any notability policy you want to name. Qworty (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

172 High St, Elstow

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

Unless all Grade 1 listed buildings are notable then this article isnt notable enough to have an article Eopsid (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elstow. Grade I listed buildings are relatively uncommon, and I would expect a large proportion of them to have standalone articles on Wikipedia. However, if, as in this case, the reason for the listing seems to be just that it is an exceptionally well-preserved building of its type (and particularly if the building is being used as a private residence), it may well get relatively few mentions in reliable sources, with none of them giving any more detail than is already in the article. In this kind of case, the information would actually be more useful in the article on the place it is in. PWilkinson (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To be a Grade I listed building it must adhere to higher inclusion standards than Wikipeida. By virtue of the application, research and listing process, English Heritage has extensive documentation on their listings and that in itself ensures passing WP:GNG guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is usual for Grade I listed buildings to have their own articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every Grade I listed buildings have an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every village in the world has an article yet. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have. Daft argument for an ever-growing encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grade I listed buildings in Bedfordshire: I searched the address on Google and Yahoo and got very little relevant results. I also can't verify the reliability of the article's single source because it does not look like it is run by the British government or a historian (it has ads and a disclaimer saying "Incorrect location/postcode? Submit a correction!"). Since right now, all we know is that it is a Grade 1 listed building, it is best to redirect it to the main list article. Therefore, if more information about it can be found, we can simply undo the redirect. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added the official English Heritage listing to the article. Reliable enough? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does not change my vote. That source still does not provide enough information to have an article about this structure (e.g. When was it built? Who built it? What was its purpose? Why was it added to the Grade I list? Did anything notable happen there?). The building does not even have a name, which is usually required for landmarks or notable structures. Still voting for a redirect. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid I'm not seeing the rule that says a name is required for landmarks. Does the fact it only has an address make it any less notable? Not as far as I can see. Not every country follows the American practice of giving every old house a name. If it has one then it has one; if it doesn't then it doesn't. When was it built? In the 17th century. Clearly no more accurate date is known. What was its purpose? Well, EH says it was a house, so my guess is that someone lived in it! Why was it added to the Grade I list? Because it was built in the 17th century! Not many secular buildings from that date still exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should of course be renamed to 172 High Street, Elstow. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade I is the highest standard of heritage listing - such buildings are of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important; only 2.5% of listed buildings are Grade I. All grade I buildings (not to mention grade II* and some grade II) qualify for entries in such works as Buildings of England so there will be other sources, but the English Heritage listing is quite sufficient for verifiability. And of course the building has a 'name' for WP purposes - 172 High Street. That is the usual way of naming domestic properties in England. The fact that some people in the past have chosen to give a name such as Bide-a-Wee is not relevant to notability. --AJHingston (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grade I listed buildings in Bedfordshire. The only source is a database entry with a single paragraph of formulaic text; this is not the "significant coverage" of which the WP:GNG speaks. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG speaks of the existence of sources and does not require them to be included in the article or, as it explicitly states, even available online. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search this address of any search engine and you will not find enough sources to prove this address meets WP:GNG. If you look at this Google Maps view of this building, you will see that it looks just like an ordinary home that is still occupied, so I am certain whoever is living there would not want their privacy invaded by having their address on Wikipedia. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no solid argument that in depth coverage in reliable independent sources exists. A building can be an exceptionally well preserved period-piece without having any published sources on it. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publications like the Buildings of England automatically cover listed buildings at grade I (and more besides). If the current edition does not (I do not have easy access to one) the new edition would as a matter of course. That is because of the status confirmed by the listing. The established principle that listed buildings in the highest gradings are automatically treated as notable is convenient and sensible. Written sources will invariably exist somewhere and if not somebody will write them, so no useful purpose is served by deletion. The article is expandable. --AJHingston (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do cover buildings such as these. But the question is whether they have "significant coverage" or just the same kind of database entry as is linked to in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now the complaint seems to be that the information is held on a computer database and not in narrative style. Stripped of abbreviations and written in a different style, it seems to me that the official listing does constitute significant coverage and the survey report on which it was based will exist and be available in the archives. Architectural guides, like birdwatching guides and other similar publications, often do adopt a conventional technical style to save space and because users are familiar with the meaning. --AJHingston (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because a grade 1 listed building is the kind of topic that an encyclopedia should cover. Let's not fetishize any guideline to such an extent that we throw basic common sense out of the window. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Legendary Ranger. It can always be recreated if anybody actually writes an article.--Charles (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why exactly, since stubs are perfectly acceptable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purpose of a stub is for it to attract editors in hopes of improving and expanding an article, but in this case, absolutely nothing has been done to improve this article since its creation over a year ago. This should be a sign that the building lacks notability outside its neighborhood, city, etc. We cannot have stub articles sitting around forever with no hope of expansion or improvements and like Charlesdrakew said, when we redirect articles, they can easily be restored if necessary. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Were it the case that stubs that haven't yet been expanded cannot be expanded and aren't notable then we may as well stop creating articles right now, as by the same token subjects that don't yet have articles after eleven years of Wikipedia clearly aren't notable. That would clearly be ridiculous and, on an ever-expanding encyclopaedia, so is your argument. It simply means it hasn't yet been expanded, not that it can't be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miskawaan Luxury Beachfront Villas

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

Promotional article about a tourist business. No signs of in-depth, independent non-trivial coverage beyond various routine promotional tourist magazine stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely promotional and the references themselves are also promotional. Searching with Google News provided additional results here, here and here. I'm sure this is a beautiful place to vacation or live but it is not notable. Google Books provided a travel guide. It is possible additional sources may be Thai but, if this would be the case, it would be better to add the article to Thai Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PROMOTION and lacking independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nomination has my thoughts well crafted. Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby (musician)

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

no credible claim to meeting notability guidelines. Single source that appears to have some sort of relationship. No backup to itunes claim. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched Google News and found nothing and also searched the website for Blackbook magazine but found no evidence of that reference. My last resort was searching Google's main engine but, unsurprisingly, also found nothing. However, I found something interesting, a YouTube video here with "CNN Live 2011" as the title but only features a song with "Adrian Visby Summer 2011" at the end, that user submitted the same video three times with different titles (probably the subject himself). As a result of my searches, I suspect this is either a hoax or a musician with absolutely zero references. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources; also per WP:PROMOTION. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This musician is too new and not "popular" enough at charts, or gathering any notability from his skills by now. So, it does not meet the respective notability guidelines. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton's My New BFF (season 1)

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

This article needs additional citations for "verification". 21:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.29.227 (talk • contribs)

I have moved the above nomination to project space and properly listed it. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yep, it has a maintenance tag on it, but that isn't a reason to delete. There are plenty of sources on Google News for example. Unless some argument for deletion is put forward I would suggest a speedy close. --Michig (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needing additional citations for verification is not grounds for deletion. The show received a lot of press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep same reasons as stated above, plenty of news coverage. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Pattern Wing Chun

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

The sources in this article don't seem to support a claim of notability. Prod removed by author with no improvement of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, you are way too fast for me. Would you at least please wait for my statement next time? I removed the deletion proposal by Noq (notability concerns). Please elaborate on your reasons and provide your background in this topic if you still think this page should be deleted, but consider first other articles in this area (compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Chi_Wing_Chun for example). You will find out that Wing Chun itself is not a widely public topic, so independent sources are rare overall. The book review which is the main source for this article is independent and if you are a Wing Chun insider you should have noticed by now through many discussion boards that this Wing Chun branch is indeed notable, being the first one with an open and published curriculum.GruberMatthias (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)GruberMatthias (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone help me here? This is really hard for me, I just wrote my first article here and much quicker than I can react proposals for deletion are flying in - I do not understand, other articles on this topic like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chung_Chi_Wing_Chun have no independent sources at all and are still here - what did I do wrong?GruberMatthias (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sentence "Prod removed by author with no improvement of sources" meant to be an argument pro deletion? Because I just read on the Deletion Policy that one should do just that if one disagrees. I am about to remove your (FisherQueen) deletion tag as well which should be OK according to the part in the deletion policy where it says If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page. Or am I getting this wrong?GruberMatthias (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I should not delete the tag if I get this correctly. However, can someone please point out to me some points of improvement potential? I have tried to be really neutral and cannot see why this would not be notable compared to other, similar articles. So what should I do? You are all very fast with deletion proposals, but once I asked for constructive feedback there seems to be silence.... Please help me a little here!GruberMatthias (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was proposed for deletion for the reasons given in the proposal - it does not indicate how it is WP:notable and does not provide WP:reliable sources to show notability. Google searches do not find anything significant either. As noted on your talk page, writing about things you are associated with is discouraged as a WP:conflict of interest. The Chung Chi Wing Chun article has now been proposed for deletion as well. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping an article that does not meet the notability criteria. Removing the proposed deletion notice without improving the article does not make it immune from other deletion processes and probably makes it more likely that either a speedy deletion or AFD discussion will be instigated. noq (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found. noq (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you, I start to understand better now what is going on here. However, in my view the Wing Chun Illustrated review IS proof of notability and it IS a reliable source. Being the only widely known lineage independent Wing Chun magazine and having published a critical review about the foundation work of the style (being one of the very few articles concerned with non-commercial Wing Chun lineages) is surely significant. The conflict of interest cannot be denied, however as to my understanding can in itself not be a reason for deletion. Pointing out a part in the article which you don't find to be neutral might change that / give me a chance to improve the article, though. Again, please consider that martial arts in general are not very strong on the "written, neutral sources" side... And again, it would be nice to get some constructive advice for a change... GruberMatthias (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the AFD is lack of notability - the conflict of interest is not the reason we are here but is just pointed out to you. The one reference you provided that you were not involved in writing is a small circulation, print on demand magazine, reviewing a self published book - not enough to establish notability of your course curriculum. noq (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well we might have to agree to disagree on this: the "Wing Chun Illustrated" to my knowledge is the ONLY independent print source for Wing Chun in English language, and they have a review process ensuring that the content is of interest to the target group. Surely, if the "Wing Chun press" sees the foundation work of Eight Pattern Wing Chun as notable, we could accept this? Also I would think that most martial arts style's foundation works are "self-published", so this should not be of substance to this discussion. GruberMatthias (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A small publication that is likely to review anything that mentions Wing Chun is really not likely to be a reliable source. Reviewing your course curriculum that you published yourself does not make your course notable. Wikipedia requires that articles are WP:verifiable in WP:reliable sources, and it does not seem that your article meets these requirements. noq (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established through reliable independent references. Really this is no more than a school advertisment.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references on Trove. Nothing on Google Books. Nothing on WorldCat. Nothing at the NSIC. Nothing on SportDiscus. Not convinced notable. I checked in my sport reference books for this style and none in those. --LauraHale (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never even heard of the sources you seem to think are valuable, except for Google Books and WorldCat, but maybe that's because I am from Europe; there are other, well established German language sources here. Since I have blocked Google Books on purpose and triggered ISBN listings only a week ago, I am not surprised at that either. Thanks for the help guys, I might try again once the upcoming 4-5 books about Eight Pattern Wing Chun are on the market (some of which will not be written by myself). But don't count on it. Obviously wikipedia has become too heavyweight to cope with relatively new things (my lineage exists since 1999 but has only left the shades of secrecy in 2011). I have read hundreds of pages of policies in the last days and these are - how should I put it - well trying to be more thorough than the science community, which is known to be a huge pile of self-selection mechanisms. Once writing or editing a wikipedia article became more complex and difficult than hosting a wikipedia on my own, this has gone ad absurdum. Good luck and give the best to the dinosaurs. I will not make the mistake of investing energy here again anytime soon. @Peter: This is no school ad, had you given it a second of your time you would have found out that I do not advertise at all, since I do not have a business. Eight Pattern Wing Chun is a free, open lineage. The curriculum is for everyone. Also it is quite ignorant of you to think that the Wing Chun Illustrated would be "likely to review anything that mentions Wing Chun". Good luck with that. GruberMatthias (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per lack of reliable sources covering the topic in depth and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would recommend you to take a good look at ALL articles around the topic Wing Chun, I have not found much that could hold to these policies. If for example you think that the book Roots and Branches of Wing Chun by Leung Ting is in any way a reliable source or something else than advertisement, think again and talk to some people who actually know things about Wing Chun. And this is just the least non-reliable source which is used in this context. Delete all Wing Chun topics, or none please. Otherwise you are distorting the competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GruberMatthias (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other martial arts articles that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would be very helpful of you to nominate them for deletion. Be careful that you take time to research each one first, and don't nominate them for deletion just to make a point, but if an article doesn't belong here, it's helpful to point that out. However, that isn't relevant to this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment may be related to Branches of Wing Chun, which is in need of attention. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For sure that article needs some attention. A slash and burn of some of the unreferenced material and then built up again. If Matthias is still around that would be the place for his style.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some constructive advice here, thanks! I will let you wiki cracks do what you need to do, and after I see what's left I might think about a second attempt to at least get my book or branch mentioned. GruberMatthias (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 (Malaysia)

(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)

These were tagged for speedy deletion as G3 obvious hoax. But they've been there for days, and I don't think it's sufficiently obvious as hoaxes for CSD. Though I do think there are reasons to suspect they might be - I've found some Google hits that might support them as genuine, but really not much at all. It's not clear enough for a G3 delete, but I don't want to just let them go as genuine - so I thought bringing them to a wider AfD audience might be best. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yesterday, I searched extensively and found nothing relevant or significant to a Malaysian TV5 but rather for the Filipino TV5. This is an interesting case and I believe reliable sources may not be English, but, TV stations rarely receive significant attention especially about their history. I found a news article here that mentions a TV5 owned by Media Prima Berhad (unreferenced article) but when I search for a Wikipedia article, I'm taken to DWET-TV (also unreferenced), with only a TV station link. The TV station's website looks legitimate so I doubt this is a hoax. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any sources for this, possibly a hoax. — иz нίpнόp 09:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there aren't to sources to prove it's not a hoax, then we don't even have to decide whether it's a hoax, because it fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. While normally television stations would be notable, we first need to prove that it exist through reliable sources. But in this case, there aren't any. There is a Filipino TV5 which is partially owned by Malaysians, but no Malaysian TV5 in Malaysia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG, plus several other concerns. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvinder oharpuri

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

This article is written as an advertisement, but it could be rewritten if this person is indeed a notable lyricist. However, the article doesn't cite any sources, and I couldn't find any. Are there any in Hindi? I only read English, and am limited to those sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, spam. Hairhorn (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to United States presidential election, 2012. The arguments presented for deletion of this are not well made. The CSD criterion for attack pages does not apply here, since it is extremely difficult to argue that a page considering, with clear third-party media referencing, the proceedings of an election campaign, can be designed only to attack. The BLP line is just a cheap attempt to circumvent a proper discussion: we're talking about two prominent politicians in a public domain fair-game election fight, not some libellous mal-reporting. The more persuasive class of deletion argument is that this is just an amusing phrase that may burn brightly for a few days, but will then be forgotten -- since this would be an indication of non-notability in encyclopedic terms (i.e. in-line with WP policy).

The keep arguments are often not a great deal better, as mere references to Google hits do not establish anything other than temporary interest in a topic since we are still so close to the event in question. It is hard to give a great deal of weight to keep arguments asserting the historic nature of a phrase that is only a few days old. However, a number of the keepers do a fair job of defending against claims of neologism (mainly that Wikipedia is clearly not being used to create the phrase itself), and thus have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged, in my judgement.

Finally, there is some useful discussion that there are no articles on very well-known phrases such as Obamacare etc., which are just redirects. This seems a strong point, to me. On Wikipedia, consistency of approach is a good indicator of an existing consensus.

Therefore, I do not find that a rough consensus has been demonstrated for deletion. There are numerous suggestions of redirecting and/or merging to a suitable target and this seems a reasonable disposition given the debate. By way of providing an immediately actionable result, I'll redirect to what I hope may be the neutral (i.e. neither Romney nor Obama) target of United States presidential election, 2012. Further discussion may converge on a different target. -Splash - tk 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romnesia

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

Newly made up word being used purely to attack a living person for political purposes. WP is not a dictionary Arzel (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is meant to be a tool to help explain things. Not only is the article well researched and referenced, it explains a term future generations are likely to be confused about. Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_too an --Mjlef1 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC). What was a political slogan had lasting memory and importance. We need to wait and see if Romnesia continues to grow in importance, and not merely consider deleting an article because it makes someone look bad.--Mjlef1 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a "tool to explain things". It's an encyclopedia for notable articles. For your second argument, if you say that we need to wait, you should read WP:TOOSOON. Also, "not merely consider deleting an article because it makes someone look bad" pretty much would make this an WP:ATTACK page. Zappa O Mati 22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this term much like other "game changing" political phrases in the past like this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes. And I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain things, putting knowledge in a convenient form for easy understanding. A mere list of articles without explaining things would be of limited value. Thanks for the WP:TOOSOON reference. I read it and do not think it applies. Multiple reliable sources are available. I certainly could see this being merged with a history of the 2012 presidential election instead of having its own topic, although the "Read my lips" entry certainly seems to have established political rhetoric as a suitable article topic. But I think it stands well on its own and contains useful research on the term.--50.138.116.139 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ You can really tell it is close to the election as all manner of crazy is being put forth on WP. I have never seen where a newly made up word with zero historical significance has had an article to promote the word. WP is NOT a dictionary. WP is NOT a place to promote political advocacy. If such an article is allowed then all the other stupid articles like Obamabots (which was speedy deleted BTW) will have to be allowed as well. Arzel (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- this argument for deletion is made by the nominating Wikipedian. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not notable, since covering every catchphrase a campaign uses would be excessive; the nominator's objections seem a bit spurious, as the article is about Obama's use of the word. (As covered in thousands of news articles; are they all attacking Romney for political purposes? No, they're reporting the use of the term.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have notability established now, but it still doesn't feel like it needs an article. Prefer merge, though I'm not sure what to merge to. I guess it could go in List of political catch phrases#United States, but that would obviously require a good bit of pruning. Though that seems reasonable if this just fades away in a couple days as is likely...I guess we'll probably see before the AfD even closes. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as something made up in one day, or an attack Non-Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is already obvious that from a historical standpoint this word is going to figure as a key aspect of the 2012 presidential campaign. Doing a Google search shows that there are already 1,000,000 pages mentioning this term. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are not an argument considered on an AfD page on Notability. Neither "historical" nor "key" can in any way be construed as "obvious", WP:CRYSTAL.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now Google is showing nearly 5,000,000 results on 'Romnesia'. Obviously this term has resonated with the people. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the four days since the prior comment indicating 1M Google results, the term now has risen to over 4.9M Google results, including hundreds of image results and dozens of videos. Importance is no longer debatable. The only thing in question is whether the WP material is neutral and researched & referenced well enough to merit inclusion. I've removed the partisan language, made the first reference go to the CNN article on its importance among the political neologisms of 2012, and synthesized a section addressing its coinage with the earliest uses of it, pre-dating Obama's recent use. Included is a reference to a quote of a listserv post by Ben Zimmer, Chair of American Dialect Society's New Words Committee on its coinage in April 2011. VikramSurya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 2001:db8. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it wasn't important until it was used to attack Romney politically by Obama? Therefore it is nothing but an a political attack phrase which at most should be merged. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it wasn't even important after it was used by Obama to attack Romney politically. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widespread coverage of this term and its definition. Very relevant and notable, if only for the time being. Dmarquard (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term has entered the political lexicom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.99.17 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC) [only WP contribution of IP][reply]
Keep As above it has entered the political lexicon, like it or not. It's of historical significance. Kevin Baas^talk

What is the historical significance? Arzel (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "political silly season word of the week" is not sufficient to meet notability requirements at all. I do not buy that it is in any way of long lasting value - even as a neologism. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NEO; "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.", and per WP:NOT#NEWS; "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." There are a handful of US-political neologisms (eg.: swiftboating, birther) that are notable - this one is not one of them. SPat ^talk 21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this could be seen as an article "created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". This is a term invented by the President of the United States, and has been a major element of his stump speeches. Clearly it's not just your run-of-the-mill neologism. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, as of a few days ago, adopted as an attack phrase by a campaign, together with social media campaigns to promote its use. A note in the Article on the Obama campaign would be appropriate, as this is a campaign strategy, but length is determined by how important this tack is to the Obama campaign. WP:POVFORK is an attempt to circumvent WP:UNDUE, giving the phrase-du-jour of the campaign prominence over and above that warranted in the article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, as explained above. Why do those of us in the rest of the world always have to suffer such nonsense when it's election season in the US? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think we feel having to put up with it in the US; I'd almost rather see a Cialis commercial at this point. In case it's not obvious, delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Political positions of Mitt Romney. The whole point of the term is to assert that Romney has forgotten his old positions. So treat this just like Obamanomics and ObamaCare...as a redirect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP: #Neologisms:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept...

The term 'Romnesia' fulfills the criteria listed in the guideline. It is notable, widely used, and there are no shortage of secondary sources. --Misha Atreides (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No dent in "larger society", unless the Obama campaign bus is bigger than I thought.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Bing--Misha Atreides (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MishaAtreides Casprings (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why then is there no article titled ObamaCare, and no article titled Obamanomics? These are both redirects to articles about the same subject, which incidentally can mention these neologisms. Romnesia is mainly a content fork for people dissatisfied with the treatment in Political positions of Mitt Romney. See WP: Fork.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you advocating deletion or a redirect? --Misha Atreides (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content and install a redirect. The content can be added to the target article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been used for a couple of days. Wiki, for very good reasons, it's a depository for every meme that pops up. If Romnesia enters the lexicon rather than just being a joke for a few days, the article can be recreated. Doing stuff like this and we'll have pages for Obamaitis and Obambi and every subvariant of Lolcats there is. Is anyone looking forward to the debates about whether Basement Cat (704,000 results) is more or less individually notable than Business Cat (1.4 million results) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman your comparison to non-substantive LOLcat memes is fallacious. 'Romnesia' is already having an impact on this election. For better or for worse it has almost single-handedly reframed the picture of who Romney is. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you have evidence of "single-handedly reframed the picture of who Romney is" in a neutral point of view, then please provide it - actual evidence that it changed the trajectory of the election itself or election strategy by the parties in any manner. As it is, it's a One Event joke, not something widely used in differing contexts. We shouldn't have articles about "binders full of women" or "bitter clingers" or "Obamanomics" or any other political catchphrase that doesn't have any real notability. If we start to see it in language outside the context of simply making fun of Mitt Romney in the context of a tight political election, that would be a different matter. It's suitable for wiktionary or nothing at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Collect and Anythingyouwant. Election silliness isn't always articleworthy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article serves dual purpose as documenting the neologism as well as the events surrounding its use. Apparently Mormon women also coined with this word in 1994. Obama's use of the term catapulted it into the mainstream, and it's reasonable to expect searches from people curious abut the term. The level of detail provided here would be lost were it to be merged to one of the presidential election articles. Gobōnobō ^c 22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is an argument to circumvent WP:UNDUE on the Obama campaign article. Please take it up there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article based on the WP:RECENTISM of the US elections. Not a term that is likely to have long-lasting notability, just a turn of phrase Obama used in a speech. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stinkin' attack page. AutomaticStrikeout 01:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RECENTISM. If a year from now it's still remembered as one of the key phrases of the election, maybe then. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP or merge/redirect I would Keep for now and see how this plays out long term. Worse case Merge with debate and keep redirect. --216.81.94.76 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the way AfDs work. FIRST notability and criteria for inclusion established, THEN an Article is allowed, not; write article, then wait a month to see if it becomes notable.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot understand how it even got to AfD; is a clear-cut Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G10, arguments that it "has been covered" are not arguments that the phrase is worthy of an article; every turn of phrase in a Presidential election is to some extent covered, and no-one is proposing "I wish I could use my middle name" as an article, nor should they. Just because the latter was used, and was reported on does not mean that we need an article, nor that, since we have an article, we need to "explain" the context, nor since we need to "explain" the context does some partisan have an opportunity to WP:COATRACK on a rehash of birtherism. The phrase does not really exist outside of recent Obama campaign and surrogate promoters, the existence of the article is pure political promotion,WP:CSD#G11 and WP bars pure Advocacy articles for good reason. That the media has reported on the Obama political strategy might mean a mention in the Campaign Articles, as a strategy, but little else.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article explains a very appropriate term of political hypocrisy. The definition will ensure that people in politics don't just forget their convictions and allow them to pull away from them when it is convenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.99.181 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's mission to punish or reward people for behavior, but to serve as an encyclopedia. There is no WP:DUDETOTALLYDESERVESIT CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, an admission that your reason for wanting the article is to express your, and the Obama campaign's opinion or attack on Romney, as per WP:CSD or WP:ADVOCATE--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not just because of the widespread notability of the phrase, which should be enough, but also because of the partisan "reasoning" being applied to argue for its deletion (it's silly, it's crazy, it's an attack, let's delete it for now and check back after the election, etc). Something doesn't become less notable over time, it only falls off the front page.Sally Season (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Not just because of the non notability of the phrase, which should be enough, but also because of the partisan "reasoning" being applied to argue for its retention (it's news, it's not crazy, it's not an attack, let's keep it for now and check back after the election, etc). Something doesn't become more notable over time, it never was on the front page. --Malerooster (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a newly made up word (see article). Not being used solely to attack a person (use has extended to Ryan and the entire base of their supporters). Not being used solely for political purposes (has become a more general term, referring to any politically-motivated "forgetfulness".) Also, it's historical in terms of Obama's use of it being a turning point in the campaign. Where else if not WP will this level of resources on the term be able to be compiled in near-real-time and then kept for later reference? Vikramsurya(talk)
- "It's not attacking one person, it's attacking many people" is an unusual defense claim. It takes guts. I like it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard to dislike this comment for all its twisted logic. It is just so amusing. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete election year sillyness. needs to go now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reform There are major problems with the article but its clearly noteworthy and not new. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no coverage of or analysis of the term, simply primary source examples of its use by political hacks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, with wide coverage of the phrase. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad-faith nomination by a Romney supporter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Please address issues/edits, not editors. This is not an argument.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The editor made it perfectly clear that he wants it deleted because he's a Romney sycophant. It's a bad-faith nomination, so you can't argue that it's not also about the editor. The other article was kept due to no consensus, and this one might end up that way too. If the editor had made good-faith nominations based on wikipedia policy rather than on the "I don't like it because it attacks my guy" principle, his odds of succeeding might have been better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would someone uninvolved please hat this.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! You know political affiliations of other contributors? I'd call that a ~~miracle~~ statistical anomally (must remember my party training and all). --Nouniquenames 04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do when they make it abundantly clear. See his comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women. Unless he was only kidding when he said, "This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen"." Not only politically biased, but also can't spell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed that Arzel ought to speak more neutrally. But we ought not retaliate against Arzel by keeping articles that ought not be kept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bad-faith nominations (of which this and the other article are two) should be discarded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Even granting your premise that bad faith nominations should be discarded, you have used the other nomination to deduce that this one is in bad faith too. Can you use the other one to deduce that all of Arzel's Wikipedia edits are in bad faith? And anyway I don't grant your premise, because you're too late; once other editors have given good faith reasons to delete, their reasons ought to have some weight. A preferable solution would be to do something to Arzel that does not affect content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's never "too late" to point out bad faith. Now, if he had taken the same relatively-neutral tone for that one as for this one, he might have got away with it. But he betrayed his true colors, so any politics-oriented edits he makes have to be looked at closely for potential bias. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I call out your bad-faith keep vote. If you cannot assume good faith then I suggest you go do something else. Now go back to your Glass House. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You have demonstrated that you are a Romney sycophant, so you've got no business nominating these articles for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        EVERYONE should be in the business of nominating this type of crap for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Not when said deletion is expressely pushing a partisan agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Crap is crap. Doesn't matter what your agenda says you're to be doing, take the time to flush the pot. --No unique names 07:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The President himself has invoked it repeatedly. Not that the President is notable, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        the president flushes the toilet, too. Obama's bathroom habits -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yup. His Mama didn't raise no rednecks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Neologism, WP:NAD, purely negative and BLP ish, take your pick. --No unique names 04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neologism that meets the GNG. In use since 2011, popularized in 2012. The Steve
Keep - article fulfills WP:NEO. Wikipedia's policy for neologisms stipulates several criteria by which we may determine if a neologism is ready for an article in Wikipedia: 1. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" (emphasis mine). 2. "...when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". There are several secondary sources which directly write about the word Romnesia in context, which explain, analyze and interprete the usuage of the word Romnesia. Thus the notability criteria found in WP:NEO have been fulfilled. Amsaim (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or at most a redirect to Public image of Mitt Romney. I'm sorry, but anyone who claims this thing is in such widespread usage that it has entered the general public discourse is either a) lying or b) insulated in a world of the Democratic Underground, MoveOn, and Mother Jones. It is a minor political neologism used in political ads and stump speeches, nothing more. Obamacare is a neologism that is truly a part of the general public, yet it is a redirect to the actual bill. Nobama is a redirect to Public image of Barack Obama. "Romnesia" is down on the same level as the old Rush Limbaugh-penned "TOTUS" (Teleprompter of the United States) which was dealt with appropriately several years ago. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 16#TOTUS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "TOTUS" never achieved anything resembling widespread media coverage. There's no comparison to "Romnesia". Pretending that it's known only to those who exclusively read left-wing media is absurd. It's a staple of the President's stump speech. Everybody who looks at election coverage knows about "Romnesia". — Red XIV ^(talk) 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Public image of Mitt Romney where we can leave a small mention of it. Seems like a nice alternative to deletion and this subject is blatantly inappropriate as an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Public image of Mitt Romney. A violation of WP:ATTACK, with a possible violation of WP:BLP. This has a better chance on Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary than here. Zappa O Mati 22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable portmanteau covered in reliable sources. A notable point in the elections. Insomesia (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:ROUTINE coverage of campaign soundbites by the political press. End of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Nouniquenames. Remember to comment on the content and not the editor. T. trichiura Infect me 18:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into campaign article. Not notable enough for its own article; neologism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability established with multiple secondary references, Y Check. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: the article gives more than just a definition Y Check. Unlike Sister Souljah moment, this political jargon cannot be applied widely because it can only be applied to Mitt Romney, so if he loses the election in 11 days, then the term will most likely not be used after that. However, notability is not temporary Y Check. This is why I think the article should be kept. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP, WP:NEO, WP:ATTACK. Truthsort (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you think the article violates either of the BLP or ATTACK policies. I'm not seeing it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: WP:AFD stipulates, that "...when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Editor Truthsort has cited WP:NEO as her/his deletion rationale, yet s/he has failed to explain how the Romnesia article violates WP:NEO. Could Editor Truthsort please explain how the Romnesia article violates Wikipedia's Notability Policy for Neologisms (WP:NEO)? I'm asking because the article actually does fulfill WP:NEO. See my explanation here. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yet another political neologism, which will be forgotten 2 weeks after the election is over. WP:109PAPERS is an essay that lays out why something that receives widespread coverage over a short period of time does not always merit an entry, and WP:NEO is part of a policy which notes that they need some sort of lasting impact to meet our notability requirements. "Swiftboating" and "-gate" have passed that threshold; "Romesia" has not (as yet), and likely never will. At most, this should redirect to Public image of Mitt Romney, as suggested by several others, but outright deletion is more appropriate. Horologium (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the campaign. Possibly the funniest thing Obama has ever said in a speech, but not something that merits a stand-alone article. To our friends outside of the United States: the election is now less than two weeks away so this sort of silliness should trail off fairly soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, very selectively, to an appropriate campaign article. This is one of dozens of similar political memes generated by the overheated political and media atmosphere surrounding the US presidential elections. It stands to be mentioned in the context of the campaign, but as a word it very likely fails WP:NEO; we may reconsider this should it turn out to have any significance after the election. Sandstein 09:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was all speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with adition comment "probable sockpuppetry". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Queen Earth

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

Cannot find any reliable sources, either non-notable or a hoax, WP:COI because the article created by someone with the username Miss Queen Earth (talk). Also possibly something similar to Miss Queen World (AFD) and Miss Beauty Internet Universe (AFD) and articles related to them, which also suggests that the user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Miss Queen World. jfd34 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also some related articles nominated:

Miss Queen Earth 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Queen Earth 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Queen Earth 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:Miss Queen Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some more nominations:

Miss Queen Earth Special Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) jfd34 (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any sources or any of the contestants mentioned being genuine beauty pageant entrants either. NtheP (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editors who have examined the sources have found them lacking in the light of WP:V. I am not able to understand the arguments advanced in the defense of the article, as they seem to pertain mostly to other languages and general issues in African linguistics, rather than to this article. Sandstein 09:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mashaka dialect

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG language or dialect wise. Perhaps I am incorrect, but, English language references weren't impressive. Perhaps someone else can prove me wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly, per nom. I see what these editors are trying to do here, but this one is not ready for the articlespace yet. I would love to go find sources and notability, but I'm swamped. So, I have to !vote delete for now. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still learning to understand what Wikipedia really is and what it stands for. However, SarahStierch (talk) is dealing with technicalities here, without giving references to what she knows about Mashaka dialect, whereas the article even gives the ampirical evidence of the chornology of this dialect, perhaps I would have answered based on what she knows. Understood, Wikipedia does not deal with original research, but how do you deal with southeast Angola languages which are under-researched apart from Chokwe and Lunda, without original research? I believe ^[1], is a reliable source, with copies of this book found in at least two Universities in UK. This type of contest, is what has brought about promotion of Ngangela language whis is nothing but "one of the ethnographic classification categories invented during colonial times in a series of African countries which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity", at the expence of Mbunda language which is the original group ^[2]. Therefore I cannot answer based on your technicalities, I hope someone who understands them will pick it from here. Libingi (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libingi (talk • contribs)

References

^ Robert Papstein, The Zambia Journal of History, Central African Oral History Project, University of Zambia, ISBN: 998203006X
^ Bantu-Languages.com describes these languages as a variety of Mbunda, also a K.10 Bantu language, citing Maniacky 1997. These languages are not to be confused with Ngangela. In fact "Nganguela" is one of the ethnographic classification categories invented during colonial times in a series of African countries which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax or mis-naming. It's not mentioned in http://www.ethnologue.com/ which is the premier catalog of minority, endangered and extinct languages. If the appropriate entry can be found from there, ping my talk page and I'll have another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible hoax or mis-naming" arguement is speculation without convincing references. The http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mck has its own challenges on unresearched ethnic groups in southeast Angola, as seen in coding separation of Mbunda of Kwilu/Kasai Congo DRC (Bandundu) and the rest of Angola, Namibia and Zambia, compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunda_people. These are research challenges that should be positively followed than speculate. "Suggestion", why not establish contacts with southeast Angola authorities for confirmation of the dialect. http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/introduction.asp#alt_names check paragraph two under dialects. Libingi (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't be doing that because it would be WP:OR which is explicitly banned on wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring research references, whether original, without giving relevant references results in feeding on speculation, and challenges certain policies. Libingi (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sagar Alias Jacky Reloaded. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Alias Jacky (Character)

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

May fail WP:GNG. All of the citations are from unreliable sources except two. Probably just merge into the film or..? SarahStierch (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to film No wp:notability suitable references. Actually, looks like zero suitable references period. 4 of the 6 "references" are wikipedia articles. No encyclopedic content.North8000 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sagar Alias Jacky Reloaded. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ripostism

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

Unreferenced, no indication of any notability, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. I get one hit that isn't us. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly made up, completely non-notable 'philosophy'. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in any dictionary, as far as I can find. A grand total of one non-Wikipedia Google hit, that one being a blog post. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly not notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a hoax or joke. I also found only one single Google hit that was not derived from this very article. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Haywood

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for biographies. Popcornduff (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE/WP:COMPOSER. If he is indeed notable, he needs more sources or information that prove his impact by the linked guidelines. That other stuff is great, but it doesn't exactly warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia just yet. czar · · 20:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICIAN and WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bushido (role-playing game)

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

Fails GNG and WP:RPG notability. No reliable RS available. czar · · 08:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Game predates internet by 20 years. All reviews from when it was released would be hard copy. Dragon Magazine, issue 34, page 46 has one. Dragon Magazine issue 134, page 75 has another. [29] - I have the hard copy magazines in storage, but I would not be able to access them in a timely manner. I am pretty sure White Dwarf had some reviews on it as well. My collection of those is not as complete. There are current reviews on line (people STILL playing the game after 30 years), but I am not sure what [WP:RS] thinks of those sites. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming those three reviews exist and have extended detail on the topic, is that enough to pass GNG? As the article stands, it's substantiated by a whole lot of OR. I'm seeing a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue here. X-posting from Aftermath's AfD, wouldn't it make more sense to include this topic within its parent? czar · · 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Given the reviews I supplied above, article meets all the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. If you want to discuss that the article is a mess, I have no problem with that - it is, but cleanup is not a reason for AfD. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't about cleanup, but notability. I disagree that two print reviews (of which we know little about review quality) is enough to establish notability. We'll have to leave it at that. czar · · 21:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "we" know little about review quality? It was the foremost RPG magazine for 30 years, and a complete collection was released on CD some 15 years back, so source access is not really a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the first, if not the first, RPG to deal with Oriental settings. Intothat darkness 18:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well-known RPG. Nominator appears to be one of the many who does not really understand what WP:OR actually means and does not appreciate that sources do not have to be online to be acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have added two independent references and will be adding more. Also the nominator tagged these articles with Improve tags and then proceeded right to AFD without any time for anyone to respond to the first tagging. This is a gross violation of community standards and goodwill. The article should be kept on that alone and then time given to allow for an improve. I will however improve this article all the same. Web Warlock (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added three. Web Warlock (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. Also I don't know the norms of which you speak. Link? Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. czar · · 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEL you made no attempt to edit the article, no attempt to discuss changes. Your first edit to this article was to PROD it. This is a violation of the community norms and standards. Web Warlock (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another highly notable game in the history of RPGs/table top gaming. Note for nominator -- Tagging for "improve" is the way to handle things if the article doesn't adequately show notability and you're not familiar enough with the field to say one way or the other. --Lquilter (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note, but WP:ASSUMECLUE. Re: tags—I doubt that this article would have received any attention if it weren't x-posted to WT:RPG per this AfD (WP:NWZ). I ask if you really think the current refs pass RS standards—if they adequately do Bushido's "high notability" justice, or where those refs are otherwise. That's why I brought it to AfD. czar · · 00:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ASSUMECLUE is an essay, not a relevant essay and a stupid one, as I've explained on the talk page. Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is a policy, says "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" is a reason for deletion, not "articles that don't currently have reliable sources". WP:RUBBISH says "the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." and "AFD is not cleanup".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really, if you don't have access to the works about the subject to check for references, nominating it for deletion is a little unreasonable. A number of reliable sources has been found.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note now 8 independent sources that cover this topic and establish it's notability as the First Japanese themed RPG. Web Warlock (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as G3: Blatant Hoax by User:The JPS. Michig (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween 2022 film

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

hoax? Makecat _Talk 08:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Eric Alexander

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are either not 3rd party, or are WP:SPS Legoktm (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only directory mentions in google books and nothing in google news. SalHamton (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in depth coverage is required. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless and Relentless Extras

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

Not a real album released by the band, it is simply a fan compilation of previously released songs. Jer ^{Hit me up} 06:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This remix album appears to be unreleased with no significant coverage in reliable sources found, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 02:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of charting, no evidence of awards, no evidence of full-length professional reviews. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald City Chronicles

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

Fails WP:ORG. The coverage of this LARP group begins and ends with a single 2007 item [30] in the Seattle alt weekly The Stranger, totaling 775 words. Keeping an article with only a single source would require a much more significant article, by a much more notable author in a major publication. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One article is not enough for WP:GNG no matter how significant the source. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The one reference is detailed but it would be insufficient to establish notability. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to delete because I haven't found any significant coverage despite adding "1995" (The Stranger cites this as the formation date), "University of Washington", "ECC" and "Vampire: The Masquerade" to my searches, rather I found results for places named Emerald City or other organisations. Judging by the group's website, it is not surprising there are few sources. A redirect to University of Washington may be possible but there isn't any evidence to suggest the university is affiliated with Emerald City Chronicles. Their website claims they hold meetings at the campus but relying solely with their website would be primary. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brianhe (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the organisation has been covered by one secondary source, a single source isn't enough to qualify as significant coverage. Thus, it fails to meet the WP:ORG criteria. --xanchester (t) 00:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete depth of coverage requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath!

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

Notability by GNG is not established—no independent, reliable sources. PROD removed. czar · · 01:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources as stated above. Article reads as original research at best and an advertisement at worst. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow, another classic on the chopping block. Game was originally published 30 years ago. It is still being reprinted to this day. D&D didn't even have that solid of a game system without new editions. So, some info: [31] - site detailing all books in series, [32] decent write up of most books in the series. Article has combined all of these into one page, which I don't have a problem with. I am sure there are written reviews in the gaming magazines back in the day. I am trying to remember which one focused on this genre. However, some recent reviews (reminder - for a game 30 years old) [33], [34], [35]. Finally found the hard copy ones. White Dwarf, Issue 34, Page 16, detailed review. [36]. Reviewing websites confirms White Dwarf did cover Aftermath in articles frequently. I am positive there are plenty of other reviews outthere. The problem is locating reviews written 20 years before the internet. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of links, yet no RS. How is this game established as notable apart from its association with Fantasy Games Unlimited? (Notability being WP:NOTINHERITED.) Wouldn't it make more sense to have all major FGU games as sections within the main article? I could support that. Right now, parts of the RPG side of Wikipedia read like directories of rules/gameplay with no effort made to establish notability (i.e., anywhere within the article, even if RS do exist out-of-reach in print form). czar · · 19:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrongwith the hardcopy magazine reviews? There used to be a time when there wasn't an internet. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. But we have no way of verifying the detail of these reviews or whether it even creates a case for the topic's notability. I'm not finding any other references to WD reviews. Is a single review enough to establish notability in this field? Similar point to Bushido's AfD: no one's saying these RPGs don't matter—the question is whether they warrant their own articles. A merge of relevant info here (into a notable parent company) seems very straightforward to me. Sending WP:RPG out to save topics without independent, reliable sources is a disservice to this AfD conversation. czar · · 19:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "we" ? I just verified them. Per your own link, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources". I don't have time to enter them into the article right now, but they are real. We are writing about topics that pre-date the internet by approximately 20 years (give or take a few depending on the exact book). That people are still writing reviews about them (even though they don't meet RS per Wikipedia policies) 30 years after the fact should tell you something about the product. The reviews from its time of release are going to be hard copy. Nothing in the policy says this isn't allowed. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that they are real—I doubt that they are enough. And fan interest ≠ RS. Look, I'm sure they're important to you and the RPG field, or we wouldn't be here right now, but are they important (notable) in an encyclopedia? That's my question. I think this fails GNG. See Daredevils' AfD czar · · 21:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring an encyclopedia to remove aspects of our cultural heritage is not a game to some of us. If they're important to the RPG field, they're important to an encyclopedia that presumes to cover that field.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although not 100% original (The Morrow Project predated this by a couple of years), the game itself is still notable. FGU was one of the innovators during this period of RPG design. Intothat darkness 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well-known RPG. Nominator appears to be one of the many who does not really understand what WP:OR actually means and does not appreciate that sources do not have to be online to be acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator did not do the due diligence in looking for articles. Sources exist and are being added. Web Warlock (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate the multiple attacks across several AfDs. Please WP:AGF and share the mentioned RS if you have them. czar · · 00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can't follow the guidelines don't get upset when your errors are pointed out to you. Per WP:DEL you made no attempt to edit the article, no attempt to discuss changes. Your first edit to this article was to PROD it. This is a violation of the community norms and standards. Web Warlock (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable in the history of gaming. --Lquilter (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search indicates that the subject has been covered in multiple secondary sources, including the magazines Asimov's Science Fiction [37] and Analog Science Fiction [38], so it does meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the links. Isn't "multiple" a stretch? Would you call any of the other hits reliable? And re: the two blurbs, GNG states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Is there really enough material here for an encyclopedia article? czar · · 00:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject has also been given detailed coverage by The Escapist in a 2007 article [39]. That, along with the above mentioned secondary sources (the White Dwarf review and the science fiction magazines), leads me to believe that it does qualify for GNG.--xanchester (t) 01:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Multidisciplinary Research

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

Non-notable academic journal. Article created by journal's editor. Prod removed by an SPA. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was ready to vote keep thinking this is an academic journal and should almost be kept automatically, but I could not find any articles about this journal. Maybe it is too new. WP:NotJustYet Maybe if somebody can find some articles it would be a keep. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone comment on "abstracted and indexed in ProQuest and EBSCO databases"? Are they not enough? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. In a previous AfD this also came up and I asked User:DGG about this (who is very knowledgeable in this area and usually an inclusionist) and DGG didn't think these databases were sufficiently selective and major to confer notability. That must be somewhere on his talk page or its archives, but I'm a bit too short in time right now to look up exactly where. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any articles from this journal using Web of Knowledge which is my preferred wide-band search tool for academic journals. Contrary to what is claimed, it doesn't seem to be indexed by ProQuest (at least, I couldn't find any articles from it on there.) An example of the journal is available here (which is in itself a little odd as most academic journals are behind paywalls.) I'm trying to assume good faith, but from the list of article authors, the editorial board and the adverts on the back cover for St. Thomas University (Florida) it looks rather like an in-house production from that University to give its faculty and students a low-risk option for getting articles published in a respectable-sounding title. I don't think it meets the basic requirements for a notable academic journal. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to be fair: nowadays many journals are open access and not behind a paywall. And even those that are (especially new journals) often put one or two issues for free on the web, as a kind of sampler to show people what they get when they subscribe. Concerning the board, we usually don't pay too much attention to that as notability is not inherited, but in this case, you're indeed right that the fact that this is very "Florida-centric" (and the whole editorial team in addition being from STU) does not give much confidence that this will develop, in time, to be a significant journal. But that is, of course, crystal-ball gazing... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello, there are several points providing ample support that the Journal of Multidisciplinary Research is a “notable and acceptable” publication for Wikipedia:Bulleted list item
- The journal was founded in 2009 and already has reached quite notable accomplishments with global content and articles from authors in a variety of leading universities.
- It is indexed and/or licensed by ProQuest, EBSCO, Gale/Cengage, and deGruyer – all global leaders in specialized information resources and important search engines – the “Googles” of academic research, if you will.
- It has both print and electronic ISSN numbers (1947-2900 and 1947-290x), and it is available in both print and online formats.
- It was reviewed by a staff person from the Harvard University Library and received high marks.
- It is open source, in order to help disseminate high quality academic research, like many other academic journals.Emiliastu (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the order you listed them:
  - This is not for us to judge. We need reliable sources that substantiate this.
  - None of these are selective databases (just like Google is not selective).
  - Any publication can have ISSNs, that doesn't mean anything.
  - Really? Is there a reference for that in a reliable source?
  - Being open access is nothing special either.
- Please see WP:GNG and WP:NJournals to see what makes something notable. The arguments you give are not convincing at all. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For lay scholar, articles from the journal are easily accessible from Google and Google Scholar.

The journal is truly multidisciplinary in that a variety of scientific articles are published from a multitude of disciplines.

The journal comes with a notable list of editorial board members –each distinguished contributors of their respective fields.– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr79 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Sr79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Again addressing each comment in turn:
1. Easily accessible isn't notable.
2. Truly multidisciplinary doesn't really mean anything: basically you're telling me this is a journal about anything and everything. It's truly hard to be good at anything and everything.
3. What "notable list of editorial board members" would that be? As I look through the list of Review Board members, I can find little or no information about these people, other than that, for the most part, they exist. (Some even seem to fail that criterion.) For the one or two whose CVs I can find, they don't seem to mention membership on this editorial board. Do they even know they have been selected for this honor? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In sum, your argument amounts to "I like it", which doesn't really carry much weight. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the newer people who want to keep this article, please remember that if in the future references that meet the guidelines appear in Reliable Sources, an article about this journal would be appropriate. It is not "never," rather "not yet," as things are - WP:NotJustYet. Hoppingalong (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJournals. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Tycoon

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

Per Holistic Design's AfD, notability was not established in the company's listed games. There is useful information here—that is not the issue, but notability is not established with independent, reliable sources. PROD removed without explanation. czar · · 00:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG -- multiple reliable sources: IGN Review, GameSpot review, GameZone review CGM review (Metacritic review list). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per Hellknowz. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:57, 20 October 2012 (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) 16:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in multiple reliable sources, as already shown. Notability of the company is separate from notability of its games. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hellknowz sources. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Convert to a disambiguation page. Shortly after I submitted my vote, I realised that additional consensus is not necessary and a disambiguation is better than a stub article. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Middle School

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

Bringing this article on grounds of WP:GNG. Content on page is standard "viatal statistics" of a elementary school. Already verified that there is no special citation/award for this individual school therefore this article can be deleted in favor of being merged to Allen Independent School District, of which this school is a part of. Standard sources on the web of rankings/location/news blotter that don't contribute to the notability of the article Fair Dislosure: I grew up in Allen and can assert that this individual school is no more notable than any of the other 16 elementary schools that don't have a individual article. Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Hasteur (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page and link it to Allen Independent School District, Berea City School District, and any other district that has a school of this name (although these will likely be named after a different person named Ford). This would be a simple redirect per WP:OUTCOMES were there just one viable target. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page - I agree with Kinu, middle schools will mainly receive news coverage for "event listings" and anything related. Middle schools have rarely been considered as notable and this page would be of better use as a disambiguation page. I should note that I am willing to perform the change. SwisterTwister talk 01:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MAC for Geographic Routing

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

Apart from unencyclopedic style, appears to fail WP:GNG, not having attracted notice outside of a research paper about underwater acoustic networks. Batard0 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete one research paper doth not an article make. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Where are the references that would meet WP:GNG? Hoppingalong (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to show how its notable. SalHamton (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any sources to establish the notability of the topic of the article. Ha dg er 23:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:BUNDLE for how to nominate multiple articles in the same AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global21

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

Doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Can't find third party sources on it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to this page, I think each of the pages that were created for the different chapters of the magazine definitely need to be deleted. I was thinking of just prod-ing those but noticed that The Sydney Globalist had been previously prod-ed and contested. Is there a way to include that as part of this discussion here, or would I need to create a separate AfD for that? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. As for the above question, perhaps you should ask an admin for some help. I've seen multiple AFDs, but never done one myself. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with uncertainty - The many affiliations with the universities may suggest notability but the article reads like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. Considering that their affiliations span to other countries and continents, it is certainly possible that sources may not be English but I searched with Google Books and found some. There is a book here that reads like an advertisement (there is another brief mention at the next page below). However, I returned to Google News and added "2005" to my search and found additional results. There is a promotional article here, this article supports the 2008 meeting with Turkey, another news article here that is slightly less promotional. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fail to have independent references. All the references are members of the organisation and thus not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical figure

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

This article was proposed for deletion back in 2007-07-05T14:06:51 and a decision was made to change it to a link to Wiktionary. Wiktionary has had the article for historical figure deleted three times and there is currently no article there. The page effectively goes to a Wiktionary red link. Deleting the article would solve the problem. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're not here to sort out Wiktionary's problems. The topic is notable and I have made a start on fleshing it out. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite What happens in Wiktionary is an issue independent from Wikipedia. However, there is a conceptual problem about what a 'historical figure' is. To me it is a person who was involved in historical events, not a person involved in historical events who shows up in a fictional work. I doubt these disagreements can be resolved. Maybe the article can be written, so all sides have a say in what a historical figure is to them. If not, delete this article. This subject is kind of like having an article titled 'Obama should be re-elected' or 'Romney should be elected'. Sometimes there are opinions that cannot be reconciled.Bill Pollard (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole concept is too vague for a satisfacotry article to be possible, which is probably why there is nothing now in Wiktionary. We should follow their example and get rid of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources present for the article focus on individual historical figures, or on groups of certain figures. Reliable sources determining precisely what a "historical figure" is, analyzing the subject, and focusing primarily on it are lacked. dci | TALK 17:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by the Colonel. A massively widely used concept, which any good encyclopedia should cover. Theres even moby apps about historical figures. And hundreds of thousands of hits for "historical figure" in google books alone. Sadly the concept does seem to be used much more often than its directly explained ,so its not easy to find sources that address it in detail. They do seem to exist though (e.g. Sylvie Richards THE HISTORICAL FIGURE AS PALIMPSEST) but havent been able to find a good one online from a quick search. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopaedic definition. The references are to uses of the term, not about the term, and so do not support the article as is, unless someone can find the definition here or here. Whether it's suitable for wiktionary is irrelevant, it's not suitable for here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I think I'm neutral now. - Sources are not discussing the concept of historical figures, but rather simply using or giving examples of those who fall under it. The term itself is really just the intersection of its two component words.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the topic is discussed in detail by sources such as this book which has chapters such as The Historical Figure in the Seventeenth Century. WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and so there is no policy-based reason to delete. Warden (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, problem is might be too notable to easily write an article about it. I can see a sociological approach to it and the role of them in history which is pretty important I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I wouldn't like to be the one charged with writing the article. It's a difficult concept to distill properly, but one which I think is critical to keep around. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search shows a lot has been written on the subject around the questions of "How can we tell they existed? How do we know the truth about them? How are such people important?" and "How freely may an artist deviate from the facts about a historical figure". I have added some content. I suspect there are many other aspects and am sure there is much more to say. It could also be better organized. But this is enough to establish that the subject is entirely notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as "historical figure" is mentioned [40] in the Encyclopædia Britannica.--andreasegde (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is clearly notable and deserves an article. There is certainly room for improvment in the article, but no reason to delete it. BigJim707 (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP needs more conceptual articles. The fact that people disagree on who should be included in the term is a good reason for covering it. Much more than a dictionary definition is needed. --AJHingston (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not my favorite WP article, but pretty clearly an encyclopedic concept. If anyone wants to work on this further, I suggest coverage of the "Great Man Theory of History." Carrite (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an article on Great Man theory; this a more general treatment, and needed because not all historians (or writers) can be ascribed to that school. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page has been turned into a legitimate article. Any problems with it can now be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There wasn't any article at all when this was nominated, just a message to see the wikitionary definition instead. The article has now been created and continuously improved since the nomination. [41] This is clearly an encyclopedic topic, as sources clearly demonstrate. Dream Focus 22:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the original proposer for deletion, I've changed my mind. This has changed from a useless redirect into a legitimate article about a subject that is arguably encyclopedic. Thanks for the work in improving it. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see significant problems with this article. Clearly secondary sources which discuss the (abstract if you like) concept of "historical figure" are to be used instead of picking sources from the ocean of sources which discuss particular figures. Such sources clearly exist, even if they are usually focused on a certain time period or school. But the current article seems to manage to use such sources reasonably well, so I don't see WP:SYNT concerns. This appears an above-par broad concept article. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article is about a huge concept. I don't think that a page for it on Wiktionary would explain enough about the concept. Ha dg er 20:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A classic case of the deletion process actually saving an article. AutomaticStrikeout 20:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject with reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to keep. I had said I thought this article should be deleted or rewritten. I am pleased that it could be rewritten successfully. Bill Pollard (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Unexplained: Witches, Werewolves & Vampires

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

Non-notable TV content. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed a search and found only one source that could remotely be considered a reliable source by any means, a short Rovi review that was posted on the NYT listing for the show. I did re-write the article to be a little more neutral in case more sources are found, but overall this appears to be your standard TV special that aired to little to no fanfare in any major sources and was quickly and quietly forgotten by most. I'm aware that this was released before releasing/adding news to the Internet became a big thing, but there aren't many non-reliable mentions of this in anything other than merchant or junk/torrent sites so I don't see where it really got a big fan following or much notice in general.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are two refs, but no in depth coverage of the actual movie and many of the facts in the article are entirely unsupported. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Stuartyeates is also the nominator. Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ack, my mistake. I was trawlling through the old afds and contributing and didn't notice I'd nominated this one. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Jump

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

I found no sources for this article other than press releases, the usual business listings, the company's own website, and a minor patent case. I don't think it meets WP:ORG. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 16:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, For the private companies, there are not much public information other than those which they provided publicly. As long as the information is not crossing the Wikipedia policies we should keep the article. AlbertSmith2020 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found these websites : [[42]] [profile]

AlbertSmith2020 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two comments above were copied from the talk page — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to AlbertSmith2020's comments: if there is not much public information about the company available, then the article will have to be deleted per WP:ORG (there wouldn't be enough reliable, external sources to satisfy the notability requirements). The first link you posted looks simply like a business listing, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source (see WP:ORGDEPTH), and the second is a dead link for me. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 15:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. One sentence about the history of inflatbles is not enough to redeem this. I'd say notability anissue as well: the arguement that small businesss don't create coverage is false: they do if they are notable.TheLongTone (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is written like an advertisement. But I can see a lot of press releases and reviews about this company (Not sure how much reliable they are). I think the article has potential to survive if written properly. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

The article has been revised and any possible advertising sentences have been removed from it.
The Followings are some of sources about this company and there are some PR as well on internet:
[business.highbeam.com]
[IAAPA profile]
[BBB ]
[manta]
[dmoz.org]
AlbertSmith2020 (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I beg to differ. Its still full of the kind of ghastly excuse for English that only PR drones think means anything.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Business listings and press releases are not reliable sources (and so don't prove notability) per WP:ORG. David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company going about its normal business with the occasional piece of PR. I see no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfied. MBisanz ^talk 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Roshan khan

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

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable source found covering the subject significantly or asserting notability. Some self published sources in the article give a passing mention of the subject. SMS ^Talk 16:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've put the article back where it should be following an attempt by the author to seek help. I think he might need clear explanation of what the problem is, and I've attempted to explain about his references. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poorly presented article, probably by some one for whom English is not a first language. I have slightly improved the punctuation: the lack of a space after a punctation mark made it difficult to read. I have also removed a few persnal comments of the authro that do not belon in an encyclopaedia, but I am prepared to keep it in the hope that some one who knows the subject better than improve it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Userify to enable the author to bring the article up to an acceptable level in his sandbox, with a view to uploading it later. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unreferenced. Seems notable, but currently not verified. I'd happily opt for keep with one or two reliable references. For now, I'm inclined to delete. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Message from the author: "Ok,ok you are right but tell me what prove do you need about this person?i am ready and i will give you every proof about this everything which i hve typed, because these all things are with me and you can ask the Pushto Academy about him and his research.i have the books.please if you or your relative visit Pakistan,must come to me i will show you and tell about his masterpiece work which haven't done before this by any one on pushtoon Research and just tell me you reject the references of blogs and wikis so of what things shall i give the references???? " Copied from my talk page. I think he's referring to the subject's books (which may or may not be notable), but I'm not sure. If we could find a Pushto speaking editor to communicate with him, it might help. Any offers? Peridon (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand Pushto to some extent, left a message at the user's talk. --SMS ^Talk 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Pushtu WP? If so, can the author complete the article (with references) in Pushtu and then translate it? Perhaps the answer is Userify - as I have said above? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes here it is. Actually I really doubt this person's notability but if there is a way this article can be improved, I support it. --SMS ^Talk 12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wiki article sounds impressive. I searched deeply commercial databases and can't find mention of his books. His name is so common I can't untangle it from the thousands of hits. There are a few blog-like posts in the article that mention his name in passing, so we know he exists, but there is nothing to show notability. Just need some verifiable evidence. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to allow the article to be brought closer to standard Wikipedia writing and citation style. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Backup Copy

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

Promotional article on non-notable software: refs are general ones not on topic and download links. Article recreation of one previously deleted multiple times and created by software's publisher. Previously PRODed; prod notice removed without addressing concerns. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello thanks for the opportunity to express my concerns. I'm new to WIKI and I have made some mistakes in the past and now haunted for that (previous speed deletion). I'm having a really hard time to understand how fast my page gets nominated in comparison to pages listed in List of backup software with much more self-promotional material and certainly without any nomination like the one I received. Cobian Backup got a very soft message not like mine, and many others in that section have a more promotional material than me or Cobian for that matter. I do understand about the encyclopedic value of each page, but I would like to communicate another alternative also. I would really appreciate if my page is kept as long as the others are in List of backup software, Thanks for your understanding. I do understand if you need to follow the rules and delete mine! I just would like to be in the same group as the others backup wiki pages are! Thanks in advance. I do understand lately WIKI became a must-stop place to learn something, and maintain quality will strengthen that concept. But when it comes to software description wikis, it is hard not to be self-promotional when you describe what it can do! Especially when the whole list of wikis in List of backup software do not display the encyclopedic content rules. Probably, a disclaimer at the top saying something not encyclopedic material would be a way, or not validated data where others could click in a like or true value or something like that.MarcoDFW (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable software. - MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feed back MrOllie. Could you please address my questions/concerns expressed above?MarcoDFW (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a key requirement for Wikipedia articles and is described here: Wikipedia:Notability. In particular the General notability guideline. You should also look at Wikipedia:Verifiability which covers how an article satisfies the notability requirement, through reliable sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks to MrOllie, JohnBlackburne and Mark Arsten and many others that help me to understand concepts like General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability very helpful and 100% clear at my end. Now, unfortunately I haven't received an answer to the rest of my concerns stated in my initial statement. And to re-iterate again, if all is so clear with links and all explaining the why question to me, why the other wiki pages in List of backup software are no so quickly nominated or measured with the same rules, guidelines and standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoDFW (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline there is "What about X?". It doesn't matter what other articles exist, this article needs to be on a notable subject in its own right. In particular if other articles were taken into account as you suggest then nothing would be deleted, as there are always other similar articles given how easily they are created. There's even an essay on this, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, which goes into much more detail.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks JohnBlackburne, but if you go to List of backup software and concentrate in the free section, at least half of the articles do not meet Wikipedia:Notability not talking of "What about X?" or Wikipedia:Other stuff exists... MarcoDFW (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passes WP:N. Many references are WP:BOMBARDment basically. This software is not even included in the very generous round-up [43] on TopTenReviews, which is however included as "reference" in this article. Download pages do not count as independent coverage and the few other obscure websites cited are not WP:RS. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. Most of the citations listed on the page are not considered reliable (like download sites for freeware). The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 02:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Becci Harrold

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

Subject is an amateur equestrian. Article does not make any claims that appear to satisfy notability requirements of WP:ATH: two awards cited, one of which is "3rd in the Best Use Of Social Media By An Amateur Rider category of the Equestrian Social Media Awards". Searching Google News, including archives, for (becci harrold) turns up nothing. A Google Web search for (becci harrold) turns up her own website, some YouTube links, some Facebook pages, and appearance on some lists of results, but no evidence of non-trivial coverage by independent sources. Unless significant coverage in print-only sources can be shown, she appears to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are insufficiently reliable to establish notability, as per WP:RS and WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a couple of minor awards, and very little in the way of indepth third party coverage. Not there yet as far as WP:ATHLETE goes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hugh Seton-Watson. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Seton-Watson

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

For an unknown period she was editor of "International Affairs" (unsourced). No other notability. Rightly flagged since July 2009 as failing WP:GNG. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her granddad's page, or to International Affairs, which ever is more appropriate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect -- probably to her father. A redirect to International Affairs, which looks like a respectable acadmic journal would be appropriate if the article mentioned her editorship. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing the WP:GNG due to a lack of sources. A redirect might be suitable if someone can find a suitable way to mention her in the article about her grandfather. Vcessayist (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. There are a few sources at Google scholar, as well as Google books. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At a glance, seems that primary notability relates to family relationship to Hugh Seton-Watson. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeez. The only thing she's doing is breathing. Redirect it--anywhere. It hardly matters where. Better yet, just scrub it off. Qworty (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Tucker

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

Not notable 18-year-old musician. I found no reliable sources to back up notability. He hasn't charted, received awards, anything. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty notable. Made the lineup for the Memphis In May Beale Street Music festival for 2012. http://www.memphisinmay.org/music-lineup

Also made the bill for Memphis' stop of the Music Voyager television show. http://www.musicvoyager.com/show-info/

He also had a song featured on a Randy Jackson produced soundtrack for the movie "A Walk In My Shoes" http://ydtalk.com/chatter/2010/11/michael-johns-song-featured-on-new-soundtrack/

Debut album is for sale on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002QU4H6A/ref=dm_sp_alb

Raving reviews http://www.acousticmusic.com/fame/p06076.htm http://www.thebluesblast.com/bluesartists/willtucker.htm http://frazzitta.blogspot.com/2010/02/will-tucker-stealin-soul-2009.html

Artist feature on the Beale Street Caravan http://bealestreetcaravan.com/artists/will-tucker

Looks like he has good credibility. I say give him a shot! If you search google for "will tucker" the number one related search is "will tucker wiki" so clearly people are trying to find a page for him. tookone— Preceding comment added by Tookone (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the above are independent relaible sources. The best I found was passin mentions, nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find sufficient evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 13:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Security-focused operating system#Damn Vulnerable Linux. Community consensus (policy), and the discussion consensus here dictates that this article does not independently meet the criterion of notability. Therefore, its placement in Security-focused operating system is appropriate as the OS is entirely focused on discovering, exploiting and improving against security vulnerabilities. If anyone needs more content to place in that section they may use the article history. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn Vulnerable Linux

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

Independent sources review: a couple of sentences in tech news website inclusion in a catch-all Linux distro database. Not notable enough for Wikipedia in my opinion. There's also a more lengthy, but not really more meaty post here in Network World, but it's the "community" section of the site; basically just a blog entry. Additionally, I found that it has passing mentions in three security books, click "books" link above. (For comparison purposes, this is the list of distros from [44]: BackTrack, CAINE, Chaox, DEFT, FCCU Linux, Network Security Toolkit, Securix NSM; most of them are not notable by Wikipedia standards.) It was suggested on the talk page that mention at Security-focused operating system would more appropriate; it already has a section there. This stub is unwarranted. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Network World review is by a rather notable reviewer [45] not just some random person. They don't just let anyone publish whatever they want. So that certainly counts as a reliable source. HardOCP is a reliable source, and their news section mentions it, although not a lot to say about it. [46] A news writer and senior editor at Geek.com mentions what it is and gives his opinion about it. [47]. Dream Focus 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not part of the NW staff. A CEO of a rather obscure consultancy writing a blog which has very little substance in most posts is more a form of self-advertisement and increasing his on-line profile than anything else. I'd hardly call that post a review. I haven't found a single sentence there indicating that he actually tried the product. He just reproduces the manufacturer's claims and then goes on a tangent about his own ideas about education and security. That's not a review in my book. [And as a tangent of my own, five long and substantive reviews were not enough to save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway LT3103U as a standalone article; product reviews don't count much on Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is totally unrelated. Two people say Gateways are notable, just not each individual product, one of them suggesting merging it with others. The nominator just said delete. You then showed it had ample coverage, providing without any possible doubt it met WP:GNG. I assume the article must not have had much in it. Anyway, just because three of the four random people who happened into the AFD said delete that article, doesn't mean anything. Its all just random luck sometimes. I feel empathy for your loss, how it stings us so to know we are so very right but still see the end result go so very wrong. Please don't let your bitterness of your loss, cause you to strike out at other articles you see as similar to your own, but instead remember the injustice, and choose instead to strive to prevent future injustices happen instead. Dream Focus 00:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do they let anyone create a blog? I think its only those who prove their merit. If there is editorial oversight then it counts as reliable source. That is written in a guideline or policy somewhere as I recall, since this came up before. Dream Focus 00:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a question, although I'm sure its right in front of me and I'm just not seeing it, but do you have a link for the Network World article you've mentioned? - SudoGhost 00:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Its the one he mentioned in his nomination. [48] Dream Focus 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Facepalm Yep, if it was a snake it'd have bit me. I'm going to wait until my sinus medicine stops making a fool of me before I comment further, but from what I'm seeing I think I'd have to say I'd recommend a weak keep for the article, but I'll look into it further first. - Sudo Ghost 01:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Security-focused_operating_system#Damn_Vulnerable_Linux
- See deletion proposal and my brief comment on Talk:Damn Vulnerable Linux. Enough said. Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 04:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That list is for systems designed to have good security. This program is designed specifically to be the opposite, so people could hack it and learn about security problems. Dream Focus 10:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked through the references in this discussion and in the article, and while it isn't the most notable topic on Wikipedia, it does appear to have enough independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with four inline reliable source citations, this software article describes this Linux OS release with the useful but curious property of being very vulnerable to security attacts, and therefore a good learning tool for computer science students. Yes, I know that being useful is not a good ground for retaining an article, but this article is useful for someone needing this kind of software. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references in the article are half to obviously project associated sites (one's the project itself, another's a hosting site I think...) and the others are blurbs on sites that do this for many many distros. None of those citations even begin to indicate notability. This seems like an open and shut delete based on what's here, if ARS hadn't gotten involved this would be a simple case. If someone can find some actual indications of notability I'll change my !vote. Shadowjams (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite assertions to the contrary, no reliable non-trivial secondary sources have been found which cover this subject. The present references are a) the project's home page, b) two WP:ROUTINE references to a new Linux distribution on news / enthusiast sites expected to cover such, and c) a tutorial. The PROD should not have been removed without asserting why this subject is notable, especially when the editor responsible has stated quite plainly above that his rationale for doing so is invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references currently in the article aren't the only references; there are references above that aren't routine in any way and are "reliable non-trivial secondary sources". Your comment didn't seem to mention those, perhaps you missed them? - SudoGhost 15:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If new sources are found during an AfD they should be added to the article at the time, as the purpose of the project is to improve articles and not win debates. It is extremely rare in my experience for anyone to bother doing so after the fact, which is why so many borderline articles end up being brought back to AfD time and again. I'll have a look through the sources linked above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; it does not, however, require that the coverage be found in the article, that's an issue of article improvement not notability. - SudoGhost 20:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm abundantly aware of that. But that doesn't change that the references are doing no good to the encyclopedia sitting in an AfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I've now added both additional cites. This is still borderline IMO; both new sources cover release announcements and they're actually nearly identical in content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a teaching and research tool. That I can see it has one independent ref that doesn't cover it in all that much depth and in a niche outlet at that. This is not the "significant coverage" which the WP:GNG requires. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GDAL. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Warmerdam

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

Non-notable, lacks sources, and (just a hunch) may be autobiography. Krushia (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A re-direct to GDAL may be best. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep slight notability present and sourced from the Sol Katz award; I think there is only limited evidence that this entry is autobiographical.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GDAL. This source supports the redirect [49], but I could not find enough other coverage to vote keep outright. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GDAL as per Hoppingalong. - MrX ^(TALK) 13:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depressive Illusions Records

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

Not notable ukranian black metal label. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason to keep. Corn cheese (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I cannot find coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Maybe it exists in Ukranian sources not covered by Google news or books, but I found zero there. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG inclusion guidelines and completely unreferenced. - MrX ^(TALK) 13:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 Apostles (record label)

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

Prior AfD is unconvincing. Searching for sources is difficult because of the name, but I am unable to find anything to suggest WP:V/GNG Corporate 22:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 12. Snotbot t • c » 23:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any relevant sources despite searching with Google News, BBC News and The Guardian. Considering that the label is independent, it probably wouldn't have received significant attention. Additionally, any attention would simply be through the artists themselves. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per WP:N, article needs sufficient reliably sourced coverage to be considered notable. There isn't much, if any, on this subject. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rheji Burrell

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

Little-known house DJ. Not notable, and no reliable sources present. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vibe is a reliable source and is present. A quick Google search finds these and more: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. An important house producer, but it may be better to have an article on the brothers together. --Michig (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Michig. Satisfied that sources exist to establish notability. If we don't get too far passed a stub, or if it just makes sense with more context, we should merge it to an article about the brothers. Vcessayist (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage seems to pass WP:BASIC. The SPIN coverage plus the Vibe coverage does it. Those are real sources. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-School Christian Fellowship

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

Contested prod. User:Paul foord notes that there are NLA Trove articles indicating notability (here), but only the top two seem to be relevant tothe ISCF (and are both from the early 1950's), and I also question whether the articles indicate notability. In any case, the subject of the article is a school club, and is therefore not notable. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Paul foord (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This ought to be a notable movement. If it was just a school club, it would obviously be NN, but it is clearly an organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why it should make a difference why the references are from the 50s - that strikes me as recentism. In any case, it is mentioned a few times in Stuart Piggin's Spirit of A Nation - although in the context of the the organisation's 1930s heyday. St Anselm (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If two mentions in newspapers a couple of decades ago makes something notable, then I'm notable (been in the newspapers about 5 times for various things). The lack of continuing coverage is indicative of a lack of notability. The mentions lack WP:CORPDEPTH. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A heyday in the 30s is still a heyday. The coverage put above is more than passing, if old; it is not like this is a WP:ONEEVENT problem. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find 18 newspaper articles on NewsBank. The org is sufficiently notable. - MrX ^(TALK) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limo (game)

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

No evidence. Quite possibly recently invented by the author of the article. Sgroupace (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article. This game was indeed not recently invented by me, the author. It was invented an unspecified number of years ago by an unknown person. Thank you. KazLabz 00:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no ghits (other than articles on "limousines" which have nothing to do with this). WP:OR and probably WP:MADEUP. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 06:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided, and I can't find any. If there are any sources, I would recommend a merge instead to Variations of basketball, which is where much more famous basketball-based games such as H-O-R-S-E are listed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources indicating notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--xanchester (t) 23:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Science-1] John Lynn Smith (May 28, 1988). "UC San Diego Outgrowing Its Science-Only Reputation". Sacramento Bee. p. A5. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

[2] Sam Armstrong (January 2, 1991). "Three's a Crowd in Trade Talks". Journal Of Commerce. p. 6A. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

[Generation-3] George Archibald (March 7, 1993). "Generation lapse Untested youth core of White House staff". Washington Times. p. A1. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

[4] Al Kamen (May 17, 1996). "Out Of The Norm: A New King Of Quotes'". Washington Post. p. A21. Retrieved October 27, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

[5] James Hannah (November 23, 1996). "Bosnia Seeks Help In Rebuilding Economy One Year Has Passed Since Dayton Accord Signed". Akron Beacon Journal. p. B2. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)

[6] "U.S. officials to visit Japan to monitor auto accord". Japan Economic Newswire. January 24, 1997.

[7] Robert Papstein, The Zambia Journal of History, Central African Oral History Project, University of Zambia, ISBN: 998203006X

[8] Bantu-Languages.com describes these languages as a variety of Mbunda, also a K.10 Bantu language, citing Maniacky 1997. These languages are not to be confused with Ngangela. In fact "Nganguela" is one of the ethnographic classification categories invented during colonial times in a series of African countries which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]