Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 November	1 December >

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton Rangers

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

Non-notable amateur football team that has not played at in a national cup or at high enough level to pass WP:FOOTYN. Team does not appear to pass WP:GNG either. At best it could be a redirect to Neil Maddison with a small mention on his article. PROD tag was removed but no reason was given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra IPs with a likely personal connection to the club have been consistently removing the AfD template from the article and pasting it into the articles of other North East England teams. Examples: [1] [2] [3]. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this BBC article. There is also some local coverage, but otherwise this seems to be a junior league team and probably not worthy of an encyclopedia article. - Mr X 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the club has not played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or the FA Vase, it hasn't played at high enough level to pass the Football-projects "notability-threshold" and hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club has not reached the levels of notability needed for inclusion; it fails WP:NCLUB and WP:NSPORT. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:05, 7 December 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) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miep von sydow

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

No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for biographies. Also, while ever it doesn't have any reliable sources it is a candidate for deletion as an unreferenced BLP, it may be deleted after Monday, 10 December. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite claims of being a top contributor for The Examiner and having a successful newspaper career, I'm not finding any significant coverage. Lugia2453 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any reliable, independent sources. Also unreferenced, which is big BLP no no. - Mr X 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO —Theo polisme 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reliable sources to verify the claims of notability placed on him. Therefore, he fails WP:BIO. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:06, 7 December 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) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translations of Frère Jacques

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

lacks additional refs, lots of the translations (eg. Cherokee), when I google it, returns nothing but WP mirrors, thus being original research TheChampionMan1234 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by TheChampionMan1234. Do we really need this Rosetta stone for a children's song? - Mr X 03:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the topic should be covered to some extent at Frère Jacques because it's probably noteworthy, but the topic itself is not notable. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT as this is nothing but a lyrics database, not an actual article about these translations. Possibly appropriate for Wikisource. postdlf (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOT —Theo polisme 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:00, 7 December 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 "keep" arguments are notably weak. It is not in dispute that this article about education programs by a religious organization is sourced essentially only to publications by the religious organization itself. Policy provides at WP:PRIMARY that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources ... Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided", and at WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". The "keep" opinions mostly ignore these policy requirements, or even directly contradict them, such as in the opinions by Willietell ("Considering the topic, the absence of secondary sources references is not unexpected and is therefore not of major concern") or by Sue Rangell ("Normal sourcing is not really applicable as it is a widley known group"), These opinions, which are incompatible with core policies, are accordingly discounted when establishing consensus. Sandstein 10:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs

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

Article relies almost entirely on primary sources and there is very little to suggest that most of the listed 'JW teaching programs' have any notability at all. There is only passing comment in secondary sources for the few that are mentioned at all. Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was originally created by me, as a concession to User:AuthorityTam following discussion at Talk:Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses#Schools. I noted from the outset that there were notability issues. See also Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses teaching programs#Article origin.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems fine to me although it would be improved with further independent sources. The spinout from Kingdom Hall was a good idea. Notability is to be considered for the subject as a whole and we are not concerned with whether individual programs are separately notable. A good number of the affiliated sources are quoting secondary sources. I am hardly seeing any primary sources at all (a primary source would be some actual teaching material). I have no knowledge of the subject (having got here merely by spotting this AfD) and the article gives a particularly useful introduction and as such is encyclopedic. Thincat (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer than 10 of the sources are secondary. Materials published by the Watch Tower Society are primary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Suggest reviewing WP:PSTS. Additional independent secondary sources would be an advantage. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided establish the notability of the topic, which really shouldn't be in question since we are talking about the activity of thousands of people. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided are almost entirely made up of the group talking about itself. The notability of the group is not in question, but the internal 'programs' have very little significance outside the group. Only three small sections of the article have any secondary sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The topic could be relevant, as it, or at least elements from it, is described in scholary secondary sources (Holden, Ringnes and others). The article like it is now, do have a slightly promoting style, with an inside POW when it comes to the topic. It looks like a clean-up combined with a merge could be an option here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no particular reason for the deletion of this article, any issues with the article are minor at worst and the article is encyclopedic. Considering the topic, the absence of secondary sources references is not unexpected and is therefore not of major concern. The article is beneficial to a reader seeking information on the particular subject and should therefore be kept. Willietell (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice to hear the views of additional editors not previously involved with the subject.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Many large denominations have large "sunday schools" or "train the trainer" programs - but rarely are the educational programs notable. The article is essentially all primary sources or non-independent secondary sources. In some fields, such as one-hit musical bans, that may be all we have, but for religious organizations, I hope we could do better. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I was going to close this, but after sifting through the references I find myself quite torn and believe this could benefit from further discussion. Some sections (such as Pioneer Service School and the Kingdom Ministry School) have independent referencing , but most of it is sourced only to JW primary sources (or where there are secondary sources, for example Hospital Information Service, the inependent sources verify nothing about the program itself) and is of dubious notability. This would be an easy keep decision if the article was cut back to only those programs covered in-depth by independent sources, but as it stands a greater consensus is needed which may conceivably be delete—notability is not inherited by tne parent of notable daughter programs, nor by her sisters.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 23:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per almost everyone above. Lets not get into wiki-lawyering. It's notable simply because it has so many involved in it. Notability isn't really even an issue. Normal sourcing is not really applicable as it is a widley known group. Regular sourcing is only required to prove notability or when notability might be challenged. I doubt if there are many who have not heard of, or who aren't familiar with, Jehova's Witnesses, or their recruiting and teaching programs. Therefore notability is obvious. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the group is not in question, and the discussion is not about the main article. The other part of the claim that there are not many who haven't heard of their teaching programs is dubious, as they are in-house programs, many of which aren't even available to most JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The JW's evangelizing, recruiting, and missionary programs are (in)famous and certainly notable. However, this article is about their in-house, Sunday school type, or leadership development programs, which are clearly NN. If somebody could show that JW has, much like the LDS, a higher leadership development program, then it would be notable. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on lack of reliable secondary sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Alternately, I could see including the significant independent reliably sourced information to Sunday school or similar, possibly even leaving a redirect behind. I note that many of the "keep" comments above seem to my eyes to not address matters of policies or guidelines, and believe that might be taken into account at closing. I also note that, in general, I probably would agree that several similar entities of other major Christian groups might very easily be notable. This would be I think in large part because those groups, like the Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, etc., do not share the JW's apparent aversion to independent media coverage, and are much more frequently and thoroughly discussed in independent reliable sources, and even often in the local or regional publications of those faiths, which often have a degree of independence from the church itself. Unfortunately, this group's mild aversion to independent reliable sources is a problem for many subjects regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. Having myself created the list of articles to be found in so far as I know the only independent reference source on the JWs, the Chryssides book whose articles are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses/Articles, I don't even see this topic included in it. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge After reading the article and taking a look at the sources, I have to agree with the points raised by those who voice concerns of notability. I venture to say that very few have heard of their teaching programs. Many are aware of a group known as "Jehovah's Witnesses" most of them know about their door to door preaching, several of them know about their position on blood transfusions and saluting the Flag, few know about their political neutrality, and only a minority know anything else about them. Thus, outside of the Watchtower sources, very little can be said about these teaching programs. The few and sparse none-Watchtower sources used mostly seem to mention information as a tangent. I think there's enough for this subject to be part of a broader article, but not enough for it to form its own article. My concerns are also over the use of "Wikipedia's voice." Instead of attributing self published claims (that is things that the Watchtower claims about itself) it states it as if the source where neutral third parties. If this was simply describing beliefs, I wouldn't have an issue with it. This article seems more like a promotional "look at what we do and how awesome we are," type page and not "This is what they believe and do" type page. Fordx12 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable split. The individual organizations need not be notable to justify the article--if they were, we'd have separate articles on all of them. Related sources are sufficient for the details of the programs. . The suggested redirect to Sunday school is by far too general--if it were merged, it would have to be into the article for the denomination. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 8 December 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 Bottom Live 3: Hooligan's Island. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooligan's Island

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

A pointless page devoted to a TV show that ultimately never existed beyond a BBC press release magnius (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak Keep~~: it was commissioned, they actually did start work on it, ~~and a few bits are available on Youtube,~~ so to say that it never existed is not factually correct. It is probably encyclopedic and notable in that context but I'm not sure if it deserves its own article; if there's a page for "Failed BBC Television programs, 2013" or something similar it would probably fit better as a subsection there.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Merge and Redirect to List of television series cancelled before airing an episode, which would appear to be the appropriate article.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find a single clip of this on youtube. There are plenty of videos of the stage show, but nothing I can see that relates to a TV version.--magnius
- I stand corrected; there is a reference in the article about the cancellation which refers to this being on Youtube, but on a more careful reading that appears to be referring to the stage show as noted above. In any case, I've added a section for the show as noted in List of television series cancelled before airing an episode.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bottom Live 3: Hooligan's Island. The press release should not be reproduced in it's entirety. Take that out and you have a proposed sitcom based on this stage show which can be summarised there. Hooligan's Island would be an appropriate redirect there in any case. --Michig (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 December 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) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (Triathlete)

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

Recreation of article that has been deleted several times already under different ambiguators. No evidence of achievements that would reach notability level. Kevin McE (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further detail: previous versions are Robert Young (Pro Cyclist & Triathlete) (AfC started 31 March 2012), Robert Young (triathlete) (Nov 2011), Robert young (1982) (12 Mar 2011), and Robert Young (pro-cyclist) (17 Mar 2011). Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 23:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jukich

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

I created this article, but at the end of the day, I honestly am not convinced he's notable. I was hoping that someone would be able to find something more than what I did and if during the course of this discussion someone does, I would be happy to withdraw the article, but I just looked again and can't find anything that would be a reliable, third-party source. There have been too many contributors for this page for me to request speedy deletion, so I thought I'd bring it here. Go Phightins! 21:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. I'm convinced this will be a case where a delete tag can save an article. Afterall, he was on a few baseball cards. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:BASEBALL/N criterion #2. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that he was sent to Korea, but I have no idea whether or not he's played there. Go Phightins! 22:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per this evidence that he passes the criterion Rlendog mentioned. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn in light of that evidence; maybe I'll look to use that to expand the article. . Thanks to all who participated. Go Phightins! 23:10, 3 December 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) 20:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Browning

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

Delete per WP:BAND -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The band is signed with Earache Records, which has many different notable artists. This could be a presumption of notability per WP:BAND. Abstaining from making a !vote right now. I'll wait to see what comes up in this debate. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a borderline one. The releases on Earache suggest notability, but I couldn't find coverage beyond webzine articles such as these: [4], [5]. There may be coverage offline in sources such as Metal Hammer and Terrorizer. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 09:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if Earache was established beyond doubt as being a significant record label, as opposed to something backed up with a load of unreliable sources, it still wouldn't give inherent notability as WP:BAND says they need to have released two or more albums on a significant label (the article states "The band has released one studio album, and two EP's."), and (more importantly) the releases and signing to the label need to be backed up with reliable sources. I'm leaning towards "delete", and if I can't find a couple more sources with nationwide distribution, that's where I'll be heading. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Terrorizer recently issued a special issue entirely devoted to Earache Records, I don't think the label being significant enough can really be doubted. --Michig (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some online content from the Dallas Observer, but the following are convincing evidence of notability, I believe: Metal Hammer (Geman edition)TerrorizerBig Cheese, Zero Tolerance - all major print magazines. I'll also see if I can get hold of the Terrorizer Earache special to see if there's anything in there. --Michig (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)...also Rock Hard, Decibel. --Michig (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's sources, which show that these guys meet WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 09:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like the band meets criteria 1 from WP:BAND. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erase (song)

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

I have been reading the recently AFD listings for the music related articles, and the guidelines for the songs, and this clearly fails WP:NSONGS. It states that "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". In this case, there is practically no notability for the song, being released by a non-notable DJ duo, featuring an non-established singer, no ranking on any national charts listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, and not even being performed live. Creating an article just for the sake of it at present seems like a violation of both WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL, because let's face it, this is not a song by an established singing act like Katy Perry or Rihanna which gets gazillion third party sources. This is just a hagiography created for the sake of it. I say delete it for now. Just wanted to also add that I did try to find sources and even added a few lines, but alas, all I could see was websites copying each other the same content or forking it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make me fool IndianBio. I know you are operating as many as 3 other accounts on Wikipedia and stop this fancruft foul thinking.If it's all about charts Pani Da Rang is doing on wiki. Hello you did the same thing for in my city and then you took advantage to enlarge your flop edits on the article to gain more edit counts.Also its a single and I don't have to ask you.Ita not all about priyanka Chopra or India. Its the first single released by the duo chainsmokers and it had already in top 80 on beatport.dont even try to change background.its seems you know your PC very much, this is not a personal blog where you keep on adding PC PC PC .Wake up and smell the coffee.

Also, Priyanka is no less then Katy and Rihanna ,but this is the chainsmokers who are celebrity DJ and have enough fan following in west.so, I think it's necessary to have an article on that.(Pks1142 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

May I remind you Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks? You comment on the content and not on the contributor else you will be reported. You haven't provided any concrete evidence or sources to support your claims that this article can be kept as a standalone aticle. This is not even a single and fails so per WP:NSONGS, the basic guideline for the existence of independent song articles. Next time, please remember to counterpoint your argument by providing sources, not cat-calling names. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are no one to tell me what's wrong and what's right...ok..go to helllPks1142 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you cannot comment on the content in discussion without making personal attacks, I suggest you leave this page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article makes mention of much notability and if there's going to be an independent article for the song the first qualifier would be that the song is notable on its own with multiple third party sources supporting that claim. As it stands, the article may already be eligible for speedy deletion under CSD A9. Holyfield1998 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The single has just released and had enough notability, since its the debut single by The Chainsmokers so it should be kept.Pks1142 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please jot down here how it passes notability, or rather which points of WP:NSONGS it passes? Other wise its a moot point to call it passes. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just the second single of a new recording artist and has gained popularity on the internet. This is a single, not an album and thus is one of the chronological single by recording artist Priyanka Chopra whop is also a noted actress and model and winner of Miss World. If this song was only by The chainsmokers then yes it may have failed to meet notability as The chainsmokers is not a recognised brand outside of USA, but this single includes Priyanka and thus "notability" is there. most songs mainly gain international recognition only after a music video is released, one has not been released for this song yet and still has gained notability. It fulfils WP:NSONGS criteria.--Stemoc (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly the kind of argument I was looking for. Good point Stemoc! —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying the same thing and its not necessary to hold a agenda to delete article everytime as she is also Asia renowned artist and getting limelight in us also.So, I want to say that.But you always hold a workshop to show how brilliant you are.Well this is not attack mind it.also the independent line which you added is no well as everybody know it's a chainsmokers song not Chopra.If it was as important to list then editors must have also added this that the xyz song is not on xyz artist album.Like Nicki minaj recorded Turn me on before her album The pink Friday roman reloaded, it there it was not mentioned as coz it not necessary.well giving explanation.My view is this not attackPks1142 (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned, and even blocked for making personal attacks. And here you go again, calling me deaf and other stuff. I have reported you for continuous violation of WP:NPA. You are not someone who would learn from mistakes I guess and have no capability to take onus of attacking others. Saying "My view this is not attack" does not change the fact that you have time and again made personal attacks and continue to do so in your edit summaries and just now here also. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The song has released now is getting heat over internet and Priyanka Chopra itself has notability factor. She is no less than Katy Perry, Rihanna or Lady Gaga. She has bagged not 1 but two titles in Asia

Most famous female superstar in Asia and no. 3 overall
Sexiesst Asian women

I know this has nothing to do with erase, but it's show she has enough notability.So I think it should be kept.Pks1142 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you clearly didn't read WP:NSONGS. The notability of the artist is not in question. You mentioned Lady Gaga--that's a perfect example, because she's obviously notable. And, yet, not every single song that she has released has a Wikipedia article. In fact, as WP:NSONGS says, the vast majority of recorded songs should not have Wikipedia articles. So, please, either tell us how this song meets the guidelines, or cease discussing the matter here. Please note that I personally have no opinion on whether or not the song is notable, and haven't researched the fact. You could be right--maybe this is one of the rare songs that should have its own WP article. But it's up to you to demonstrate through reliable sources that it is. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Stemoc and Pks. The Chainsmokers are well known in the US and Priyanka Chopra is world wide known. Caden ^cool 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably haven't read the above, but you did not point out how the song is passing WP:NSONGS? Remind you that the notability of Chopra or the existence of The Chainsmokers is not the real question here. A song which hasn't been performed, or has seen major chart actions or even been accompanied by major third party sources or a promotion like music video, likely doesn't have any place here. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSONGS states that if not enough coverage exists, or the song hasn't been certified or charted, it shouldn't have an article. She seems to be popular, but if "In My City", which had moderate coverage, did not chart, I don't expect this song to chart either. We can give her the benefit of the doubt, but later. Also, The Chainsmokers lack commercial performance to date, so nothing tells me this would be different. Finally, the fact that this is "an independent song and would not be present on Chopra's debut album", gives me the impression that this fails notability by all means [unless it manages to chart]. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Montoya

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

Also nominating the following articles that were created along with the bio:

Prom (Christian Montoya album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beautiful Girl (Christian Montoya song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lonely (Christian Montoya song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love Numb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these are related to the main AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable musical artist. Given sources make no mention of the subject at all. Couldn't find any significant coverage in a Google search. Tried a PROD, which was removed without explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found the additional ones during NPP; there is nothing out there that could possibly establish this person's notability, or the notability of his album. Fails WP:ARTIST and they fail WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrog 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, the album article is WP:CRYSTAL; it hasn't even been released. §FreeRangeFrog 19:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same biography has now been posted as Christian (Entertainer). Same apparent confusion of the subject with Rihanna when it comes to providing references, same inability to tell the difference between "addition" and "audition". Anyway, non-notable, fails WP:NMUSIC. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is also worth noting that on Talk:Christian (Entertainer), User:Tysmooth has now confirmed that these articles are autobiographical: "it is my PERSONNEL stuff and it is my article about me and im NOT done editing it yet. I have alot to go". AllyD (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That article is a dupe of this one ... this AfD is pointless, they should all be speedied and this person given a temporary block. §FreeRangeFrog 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One argument in favour of persisting with this at AfD is that - assuming the articles are deleted - that consensus can be used to speedy-delete all subsequent reappearances under variant names. AllyD (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he created it again, I tagged it as A10, so it will get speedied again. Hopefully this will get the attention of an admin. §FreeRangeFrog 22:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave him a {{uw-create3}}, though a 4 might've been in order. Note that this is the third time he's created a whole batch of articles that had to get speedied or nominated. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. At the time of my previous comment, I failed to notice that User:Tysmooth had blanked the Christian Montoya article, and had been reverted. Since the only other substantial contributor was an IP whose contribs reveal that he's clearly Tysmooth editing while logged out (either accidentally or for wholly non-malicious, non-disruptive purposes), I've nominated the page for speedy deletion per the G7 criterion, where the sole contributor has blanked the page in good faith. I suppose that this means that the A10 deletion of Christian (Entertainer) no longer holds up - I'm not sure if I should request restoration (assuming no one challenges the G7)... what do other editors think? You could make the argument that if he wanted one page deleted, he wanted both deleted, but you could also view it as a convoluted way of saying that he preferred the "Entertainer" title. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:57, 3 December 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 Theron Mountains. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Therons

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

This page was prodded "Unsourced and fails WP:NOTABILITY". But the Therons are major characters in the very notable and landmark Dan Dare science fiction series, and their reference is many times in the Dan Dare stories in the Eagle (comic). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well... the only issue is that you'd have to show that the Therons have received in-depth coverage in sources that are independent of the series. That means that you'd have to use something other than the series to show that they're notable. The big problem with showing notability for things of this nature (side characters, various aliens, etc) is that you'd have to find an independent and reliable source that actually discusses them in depth and not as a brief mention. You have to show that they're notable independent of the series as a whole, just as Wookies are independent of the Star Wars series as far as notability goes. What I might suggest as a way of salvaging this article and the other articles for the various aliens of the Dan Dare series is to merge all of the aliens into one large article and try to source that, rather than trying to find sources for individual articles. Many times when aliens/characters about ongoing series (especially Golden Age ones) are usually talked about as a whole rather than individually, so this is probably your best bet here. I'm having some trouble finding sources, I must admit.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask on the email group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dandare/?yguid=160092482
- Or see http://www.dandare.org/ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded the article. please read Tokyogirl79's comment above. She said it better than I could. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dan Dare or Keep: The relevant pages of the one book listed under References are available as a GBooks preview certainly look like a reliable independent source, and the article from which they come is certainly in-depth about Dan Dare and mentions the Therons a bit more than in passing. The main source for the pages on the Therons is apparently: Edward James (1987). "The Future Viewed from Mid-Century Britain: Clarke, Hampson and the Festival of Britain". Foundation: The Review of Science Fiction (41, Winter 1987): 42–51., which may well deal with the Therons in rather greater detail. Unfortunately, while I have a number of more recent issues of Foundation available, I do not have that one - can anyone find it and look? If we can find any in-depth reliable sources beyond these for the Therons, I think we should certainly keep - otherwise, we certainly have enough to justify a merger. PWilkinson (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not up to editors to decide which characters are notable or not. That's something for third party sources. And right now, there is a lack of significant coverage in those sources that could WP:verify notability. I suppose I could support a merge as a compromise, to expand the main series article and provide these characters with proper context. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Theron Mountains, with an optional redirect hatnote to Dan Dare. No significant coverage and there's almost nothing "ther on" the page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dan Dare--Crazy runner (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Theron Mountains - no notability. Claritas § 12:31, 3 December 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon F. Merz

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and who has never published a book that passes any of the criteria at WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've fleshed out some of the article and found some sources, but it's mostly local coverage and trade reviews. I'm kind of undecided so far, but am leaning towards delete. I just want to note that there is a second Jon F. Mertz that is a University of Pennsylvania professor and that they are not the same person. That will probably interfere with looking for sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Two reasons in combo.

1. Per WP:AUTHOR #3: "The person has created.. a.. well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of.. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I count five dedicated book reviews, plus multiple coverage of his NaNo win, and coverage of the possible TV series. Granted three of the five reviews are trade, but they are trade books, to be expected for teens and 20s vampire genre, and trade reviews are OK, so long as they are dedicated articles about the book and not a PR.

1a. The TV series. It is WP:TOOSOON to call, but the source[6] shows they have raised the money to begin filming which is the biggest hurdle. It does seem likely they will have a pilot sooner than later, although unknown how notable it will be. This is clearly not enough on its own, but in combo with 1 above is enough for me. Many of the sources are recent and most likely another year or two even more sources will show so no rush to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Martin

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

Article about a football player who has not played a professional match, despite limited news coverage he does not meet WP:GNG. Cloudz 679 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails WP:NFOOTBALL. —Theo polisme 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:20, 7 December 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 no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've Come This Way Before

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

The one source calls it: "Nancy Priddy's sole, obscure solo album". Almost notable for being non-notable, but not quite. Gigs (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The allmusic review [7] is in-depth. Also reviewed by the American Record Guide, Volume 35, Issue 2, 1969, p. 590 & given the Special Merit Pick for popular music in Billboard, Nov 9, 1968. [8]. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That single review plus the artist's notability are enough to warrant a pass under WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog 22:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The artist's notability is irrelevant. So you are left with a single review that mostly talks about how obscure and unnoticed the album was. At the very least, this should be merged into the artist's article since it looks like that one is heading for keep. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I know that notability is not inherited, but considering the sheer amount of album articles without a single review or reference around here, most of which are promotional, and are given a pass based on the artist's notability. At least this one has a review! §FreeRangeFrog 21:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nancy Priddy. The all music review makes it clear that her fame as an actor is why it's being reviewed. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely untrue... 86.44.25.145 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 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, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Goksun

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

The sources cited go nowhere near to establishing notability. None of them does more than establish that she exists and is a film actor. The main claim of significance in the article is that she played a "leading role" in "Doktorlar". I have searched through pages on various Turkish websites that certainly confirm that she acted in that film, but I have found nothing that makes it clear that her role was a major one. The article makes such statements as that she has played "alongside influential actors", which is almost always an attempt to imply notability by association for a person who lacks evidence of notability in their own right. I have found numerous apparently reliable Turkish sources that mention her, but none that give substantial coverage of her. If someone can do better than I have done at finding reliable independent sources then that will be fine, but everything I have seen makes this look like an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise an actress who comes nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (If anyone wishes to search further, it may help to know that her surname is actually Göksun, rather than Goksun.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Doktorlar" is a TV series, based on Grey's Anatomy. For the last season she took over the leading role from Yasemin Ergene, which made her breakthrough. Here are some links to the articles from reliable Turkish newspapers and the Turkish wikipedia page of "Doktorlar"

She is now playing in the "Bir zamanlar Osmanlı" TV series, which is a major production. She can be seen in the official poster for the series, second from the left. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Bir_zamanlar_osmanlı_kıyam_1._sezon_resim.jpg

The "influential actors" that are stated are Fırat Tanış and Türkan Şoray, and they have very important scenes together. ^[1]

It is understandable that it is hard to measure someone's notability from outside of a country, but she is as notable and well-know as the other Turkish actresses that have articles on wikipedia.

^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

--tmr (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Türkan Şoray'dan 'gerçek' Osmanlı tokadı!". haberturk.
^ "Leyla Göksun and Kutsi the male lead of Doktorlar making an appearance in a morning TV show in a Turkish television". Show TV.
^ "Incredible stories of young actresses". milliyet.com.tr.
^ . hurriyet http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/magazin/televizyon/16988366.asp. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Leyla Goksun fan page".
^ "Turkish wikipedia article "Doktorlar"".

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that would put this person past WP:ACTOR. Maybe it's the lack of English sources, but if we can't source a BLP then it needs to go. No prejudice to userifying and re-creation later once it can be sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Significant concerns were raised about the mixing of multiple topics under one umbrella, the notability of each of these topics as topics, and the reliability of the existing sources. The previous discussion noted, rightly, that AfD is not for cleanup but the article is eight years old. Further, that discussion did not, as this one did, grapple with the topic's notability and the quality of the sourcing. Mackensen (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States

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

Being a horrible, badly sourced article full of OR is not necessarily a reason to delete. But beyond that, this article doesn't seem to meet our criteria for notability. Although there are plenty of sources discussing the relatives of US presidents, this article is about genealogical relationships between presidents and that doesn't seem to meet our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information is actually trivial. Almost anyone can trace his or her relationship to anyone else if you go back far enough. BigJim707 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of good sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there are plenty of good sources, then where are they? Practically the only cited information is in the 'Presidents related to royalty' section. This article has had various maintenance templates, some for over a year, with no appreciable improvement in the various cited issues since the templates were placed on the article (notwithstanding possible WP:BLP concerns with all the unsourced assertions about living people).

When this article was up for an AfD in February, it had a page size of 60kB and now it is up to 166kB...where will the article stop? In the past nine months it has accumulated the asserted degrees of relationships of Sixth cousins, Seventh cousins, Eighth cousins, Ninth cousins, Tenth cousins, Eleventh cousins, Twelfth cousins, Thirteenth cousins, Fourteenth cousins, Fifteenth cousins, Sixteenth cousins, Seventeenth cousins, Eighteenth cousins and Nineteenth cousins...and that is just for the 'Indirect relatives' section, with many of those asserted relationships being once-removed, twice-removed, thrice-removed, four times removed, six times removed, seven times removed, nine times removed, ten times removed, plus one asserted relationship of 'half-cousins, thrice-removed' with the most tenuous claimed-relationship perhaps being either "George Washington's third great-grandfather's wife, 7th great-granddaughter's husband" or "fifth cousins in-law four times removed".

And the inline-citation references? I decided to take a look at Ref #1. It's from CBS News, and on the face of it that would seem reliable but then when the cite is verified, the actual news story extensively quotes and relies on Ancestry.Com, which, like Wikipedia, is a user-submitted resource. If this article could be improved according to Wikipedia standards and guidelines, then by all means, it should be retained, but I tend to think that, if (in its present state) it were submitted at Articles for Creation now, it most probably would not be accepted - I think that would be because the notability is simply not proven and the text's claims and assertions are not verified. Shearonink (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For another tenuous relationship there's always the asserted and unverified claim of a President's great aunt marrying a first cousin, three times removed of another Colonial politician's wife. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to emphasise again the issue of notability - what reliable sources discuss in depth "genealogical relationships between presidents"? Not the relationships of individual presidents to other people, "genealogical relationships between presidents". Dougweller (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple, independent, published reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth, I am unaware of that because the article has no form of cited material for the majority of its content. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unmaintainable list of mostly unsourced and unsourceable trivia and original research of no discernable notability and dubious encyclopedic value. My own extensive searches turned up nothing in the way of reliable sources that treat this topic as a coherent whole, and it is extremly unlikely that the bulk of the material can ever be properly verified, as it seems to have been cobbled together from very unreliable self-published sources created by non-experts. Most of the arguments for keeping this article in the last AfD boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITSINTERESTING and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivial --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AFD resulted in a very strong keep consensus, so the information is obviously useful. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And yet none of the arguments were on policy grounds. Where are the reliable sources discussing genealogical relationships between presidents that show that this is a notable topic? "It's interesting" or "it's useful" are not policy reasons to keep an article. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a perfect example of the dicta that "AfD is not for cleanup" and "please search online before coming to AfD". The article has inconsistent, irregular, or missing citations, but that is no reason for deletion. Every bit of information could, in theory, be sourced well, mostly Legacy.com, Peerage books, Snopes.com, Ancestry.com, periodicals, Presidential biographies, etc. Our core readership -- students -- will certainly want to find this information and the citations therein right here on our Project. Consensus does not change that quickly since the last AFD only eight months ago; even my mother's pregnancy lasted longer than that. The Community decided that it was notable less than a year ago. My standard for CCC is thus: if you would be laughed out of family court for re-litigating a settled child support or child custody issue, then you should not try to argue an AFD so soon. I can only think of one AfD that was re-nominated so soon, and only because Jimbo Wales got involved in that one. Now, I'd love to trim out the NN relationships (19th cousins and the like). Bearian (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bearian, I did not nominate because it's a bad article, I nominated because I don't think it is about a notable subject. The community did not decide it was notable, I've already stated that the arguments in the last AfD weren't policy based. I should have added that the reason given for nominating it in the first place was not an acceptable reason either. I'd appreciate it if you'd deal with the reason I nominated it before suggesting I nominated it for being badly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSnopes.com probably gets more wrong than they get right. They are not a good source. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com is not a reliable source either. Legacy.com would require loads of Original Research to get anything out of it, the same with periodicals, Presidential biographies - in short, the whole argument that the information is out there somewhere is not a response to a lack of notability. Agricolae (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article that gives it notability. As it stands now, there is nothing notable about U.S. Presidents being "Ump"-teenth cousins AND halfway through the article it becomes a coatrack with the inclusion of "Presidents related to royalty". --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a collection of inconsequential genealogical curiosities that have more to do with the quirks of the American population than have any meaning in a scholarly sense. Anyone having significant ancestry from colonial New England has about a 50/50 chance of being related somehow, due to the nature of the population dynamics of the era. Precisely how is just a trivial detail. This is basically the genealogical equivalent of making a Wikipedia article out of a detailed description of somebody's stamp collection. Then as Kansas Bear pointed out, the second half of the article has nothing to do with the topic. Agricolae (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what it's worth, yes, I think the topic is notable per WP:LIST and WP:GNG, because the material within can be sourced well, and because it does not need OR to do so. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the topic "genealogical relationships between presidents" discussed in reliable sources in any depth? And I submit that this isn't a list article. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the above discussion, it seems that the objections are mainly directed at the first portion of the article, i. e., the inter-presidential relationships. Therefore, the second portion, i. e., relationship to royalty, may be considered for splitting into a new article, if there is consensus. The charts were removed by one editor due to problem with sourcing. The sources for the charts are given in some detail in the Bibliography#Webpages section of the article. Better sourcing can probably be done with someone with access to the books given in the Bibliography#Books section. Therefore, the charts may be considered for reinstitution with improved sourcing. Members shown in the first chart have separate biographical articles on them in Wikipedia, wherefrom their parentage and progeny was taken. Obviously, the first chart can be properly sourced; but members shown in the first chart are so notable that the chart is in the nature of Paris being the capital of France. But as I was one of the editors of the royalty portion of the article, so I don't want to tamper with the article during deletion consideration process. Hereby I request permission to split the royalty portion, if there is consensus. Hrishikes (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. That will just make two unsupported, OR, non-notable pages. Nothing in the Web pages section is a WP:RS (except perhaps the first, but it is just there for the technical background). No genealogy on the web is reliable unless it is produced by a recognized expert, and there are very few of those. Many of the footnotes are also to unreliable web pages (notes 2-11 & 15-18 are definitely non-WP:RS; 12 is iffy, being a local newspaper puff-piece, I haven't seen 13). Working down the list of books, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th & 8th trace between medievals (either royalty or barons) and American immigrants. They do not address relationships to presidents. The 9th is a book about American immigration between the Seven Years War and the American Revolution, and a search for the word 'President' reveals no relevant matches. The 10th is a set of tables that show the genealogies of the royal dynasties of Europe, with their coats of arms - no presidents there either. I have not seen Weir's work (the 5th), but given her overall body, I see no reason to expect it would give lines of descents to presidents. The 6th I have also not seen, but again it looks British. Thus 9 out of the ten are not addressing the subject, and require a significant amount of WP:OR to be used - these are source used by people who are researching the question, not written by such people to report their findings. That leaves the Gary Boyd Roberts book. He is a compiler of published studies showing ancestries of famous people, presidents, Lady Di, colonial immigrants, etc. He claims no expertise, but is careful to draw his material only from publications in respected journals, and communications with respected scholars. I don't know which of the suggested lines appear in his book. The compilations are not peer-reviewed, but the author is reasonably well thought of for his judgment and care (i.e. he won't just publish anything, he only wants to include what can be reliably claimed). The question is, does one relationship-collector publishing a book, however carefully compiled, make for notability? One way or the other, this page needs a whole lot of trimming. It would not surprise me at all if a lot of the relationships and descents are entirely unsupported, or even outright incorrect. Agricolae (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy enough to find sources which discuss these relationships, e.g. American Government: "Twenty-six presidents have been related to other presidents; these relationships encompass two father–son combinations...". Warden (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The unsourced material is easily sourced, and I'm not seeing a reasonable argument against the notability of the subject. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete I doubt there are good sources for any of this except for a few fairly close relationships, and in any case the whole president-to-president section is unsourced. The descent from royalty section I would have to describe as legendary even though has sources; the other section is manifest trivia. I am not as knowledgeable about the field as Agricolae is, but I see no reason to dissent from his picture of what sources are presented. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 7 December 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) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rohrmüller

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

I declined a PRODBLP, because the article does have one source. However, that one source does not seem to me to be enough to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single source verifies that he exists, but that's all. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject fails WP:GNG and the article does not establish notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:24, 1 December 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 Billy Childish. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hangman Records

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

A record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches in Google News archives are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this passing mention in Google Books (here), but it's certainly not enough to pass Wikipedia's nobability guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Billy Childish. This label has released many records that have received significant coverage. Like many independent labels, judging it as a business isn't sensible. This is Billy Childish's label and it has received coverage in books such as They Could Have Been Bigger than EMI. As a label that is so important to the history of Billy Childish, a merge would be indicated, but this would unbalance the Billy Childish article which is already quite large. If this was a section in the Childish article it could quite reasonably be split off into a separate article, so leave it be. --Michig (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Billy Childish, which is where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Pomona Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering

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

This department is not notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia page. Other departments in this college don't have their own Wikipedia page. Calpolylolli (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absurd article on a non-notsblre department. It's not that other departments don't have their own wikipage, but that none of them should, just like almost all departments in almost all universities. The effective criterion for an individual department as shown by consistent decisions in every AfD on them, is world-famous. (I am aware that the nominating ed. might be a sockpuppet, but the article needs to be deleted in any case) DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect non-notable on its own, all coverage can be appropriately covered in the main university article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona . Stuartyeates (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 837

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

Does not appear independently notable No unique names 18:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough coverage to showcase the notability of the device. I'd be glad to reassess my vote if sources are provided. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:22, 7 December 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 23:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DPT Labs

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

Non-notable obscure corporation; we don't even have an article for its parent company, DFB Pharmaceuticals. Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an AfD from 2 months ago voted keep and the company seems reasonably notable from the sources I saw in said AfD. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

information The creator and main editor of this article says that "Our client" has plans for the company; but has never, anywhere that I can see, admitted to their COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be considered a COI declaration. --Drm310 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but on somebody else's talk page is not where we warn COI editors to notify folks that they have a COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company. fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 1000

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

Does not appear independently notable No unique names 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough coverage to showcase the notability of the device. I'd be glad to reassess my vote if sources are provided. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:25, 7 December 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) 20:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burton (businessman)

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

Non-notable individual, spammy and sources mainly primary - do not support notability, Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's Known for: Director Of Photography on Most Haunted. Nothing there that would merit inclusion under WP:GNG even. §FreeRangeFrog 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not notable. Yworo (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the paucity of third party coverage giving in-depth coverage indicates he fails WP:GNG. None of his accomplishments facially rise to WP:ANYBIO, references aside. JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Corrected 'Known For', subject has featured in many shows and is recognised as part of the Most Haunted team. Adapter76 (talk) 07:46, 01 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- even so, that is not the requirements for a stand alone article. how does this article meet the actual requirements? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer? It doesn't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodseats44 (talk • contribs)
Delete - Known for? That is not evidence of notability and there is nothing at all in the article that suggests that the subject is notable in any way. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per all above. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:26, 7 December 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 Joanne_Ooi#Plukka. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plukka

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

The article is fundamentally an advertisement for a retail website Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:25, 16 November 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 November 16. Snotbot t • c » 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While we can't delete something just because it's an advertisement, I do notice that some of the sources on the article are of dubious reliability. I also noticed that almost all of them are about the company's launch back in 2011. The Tech Crunch article is the most recent, being posted back in March and even then it's pretty much about the launch of the company more than anything else. There's quite a bit of coverage about the company's launch, but then to really show a depth of coverage we'll probably need something other than articles that report the company starting up.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've drastically revamped the article to remove the blatant promotional prose. It's still not perfect, but far improved over the previous version. As far as coverage goes, I'm noticing that apart from the coverage it got when it launched, the website has received no other coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joanne_Ooi#Plukka. Other than a spate of coverage about the company launching its website, there really isn't a depth of coverage here. Most of the articles were released around November/December, with only one site giving the website any notice beyond that point and even then it's just focusing on the launch of the company. It's just too soon to have an article for the company. Since one of the people who launched the website has a page here on Wikipedia, it'd be more appropriate to redirect it to her entry and add a brief paragraph on the company. After I removed all of the overly promotional prose, there's only about 1-2 paragraphs of actual data about the company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cleanup of Ooi's article in general and added information about her website. Now there is really no reason for there to be a separate article about the website. If it does gain more coverage later on, it can be re-added or un-redirected.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Gilbert

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

Sorry, just not a notable designer. Article is a marketing stub Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. The sources currently in article are good enough for me, although not perfect/ideal. No real presence on Google News, but she is a relative newcomer. We have kept other articles with less sourcing/references, and I believe that even if deleted now, at risk of sounding WP:CRYSTALBALL, she should pass notability this time next year at this rate. Mabalu (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and the article can be created when and if that notability threshold is passed. My !vote is Delete. §FreeRangeFrog 21:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with FreeRangeFrog, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Google News Archive [9] finds almost nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am this articles creator. The article meets all WP:NOTABILITY requirements. WP:TOOSOON states that if WP:BASIC is met that the notability standard takes precedence. WP:TOOSOON specifically states that it is only to be used if the sources quoted DO NOT YET EXIST but all of the sources do exist. Really? Womens Wear Daily isn't enough for a designer to be considered notable? It's essentially the fashion bible. Chatterboxer (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Women's Wear Daily article is behind a paywall, so it isn't possible to tell whether that is actually significant coverage or a passing mention. The lede talks about "a pack of" female designers, which suggests that she gets maybe a paragraph in an article about many designers. In any case, a single reliable-source reference is not enough to establish notability; the guideline says "multiple". --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 17:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article or sources I saw indicate that the subject is notable for a standalone article. Is she one of the most famous designers who is widely recognized? Nope. So what exactly is the claim to notability here? Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 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) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Hornig

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

Simply not a notable designer, sorry. Advertising page mainly referencing by her own website Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an admin - WP:WITHDRAWN as references have been found by Mabalu and someone (maybe me) will fix the article --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article appears to have been initiated by the subject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst the article is excessively promotional, the subject does have coverage. She is known and recognised. I can see numerous good sources on Google News that could be used to improve the article. She has a high profile and people do seem to know who she is: Oprah Magazine, 2009 1, 2, 3, 4(already in article), 5 (ditto) - there's a lot of material on Google News going back over 10 years. The article can be rewritten and improved to make it less promotional. It does not require deleting. Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the sources noted above, there is a profile piece (in German) in [10] in Der Spiegel. I can't read German but the machine translation from google makes it quite clear that this is significant coverage with Hornig as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 15:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Blinkhorn

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

Non-notable artist. One single interview, and a bunch of blurbs at various galleries, are all that can be found about him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG. —Theo polisme 00:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST, as well as WP:GNG. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:28, 7 December 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 23:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kowalewska

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

The person described here was married to a French celebrity writer and was known only in these circumstances. Yet, the article (largely unsourced) suggests that the person is a recognized artist. If this is true, no source gives any evidence for that. At this stage, I see no reason to keep this article in Wikipedia Dont even ask (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not Notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My favourite aspect of this article is that the lede states that she is known for her relationship with an author and her appearance in a reality show. Then we get to read about her art. So, if she's known by those two things, we can only judge notability based on that. Notability is not inherited, so does being on that one reality show establish her notability? I'd say no: at the most we'd redirect the name to the article on the show. As for WP:GNG she does not appear to be independently notable and per WP:ARTIST, unless there are references forthcoming that establish her as an artist, that would be non-notable as well. The "Approved for Wikipedia" tag on the images is a nice touch. There's nothing suspicious about that. It's not like that could be read as a promotional effort to establish notability through Wikipedia. On the other hand, I now have a new desktop image. freshacconci talktalk 15:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources support her notability. Being in a relation is not important (notability is not inherited or gained by a relation). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is "infamous" for at one time being 21 years-old and in a relationship with a 56 year-old author, then publishing a memoir about it called Sulitzer et moi, then she allegedly threw him off a balcony which nearly cost him his life in 2006. They separated soon after. She was on TV a couple times[11][12] interviewed by Thierry Ardisson which is a significant show in France. Radio. The reality TV appearances. Probably other TV and radio appearances. Overall seems like a known personality in France, but the sources don't come easy, need to search Google.fr -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this could be adequately sourced, then perhaps she could be established as notable as a reality show personality and some sort of media star. This does seem to be her only claim to fame. If this is the case, everything on her art would have to be removed save for a passing mention that she also paints. There's no indication that she passes WP:ARTIST so based on art alone she fails WP:GNG. If sources are found in French (my French is limited), this may be a weak keep as a media/reality TV personality. freshacconci talktalk 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on art alone she fails but her claim to fame in France is the notorious femme fatale story over a roughly 7 year period. It's probably no accident this article appeared on the English Wikipedia where she might attempt to restore her reputation and safely ignore the less desirable side since presumably it might go unnoticed, unlike on the French wikipedia where no article was ever attempted. I think if this story happened in the USA it would be easily notable. The problem is no one here really understands what a notable French television appearance is or is personally plugged into the French culture and news. I wish we had someone from France to help navigate this. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 5 December 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) 19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cave of Elijah

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

This article contains only a close paraphrase of seven verses of the bible, together with a rather dim image of a "grotto" of unknown location. There are no references. if there is to be an article on this subject it needs to be started from scratch. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Biblical legends are typically notable and it's of no surprise it took only a few seconds to find very significant coverage on this topic. [13][14][15][16][17]. There are many more. I'd like to see better written historical context of this legend, but that an article improvement issue and not a notability one. As WP:BEFORE in WP:AFD states, a {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} tag would've been more appropriate here than AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep You will be hard pressed to find a Biblical reference that is not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some responses and a little more explanation:

{{Refimprove|date=March 2010}} was already there without effect
The story already appears, more or less word for word the same, at Elijah#Mt. Horeb. That version puts it into the right context, where it has some meaning. Duplication as a separate article adds nothing.
The cave as such is fairly incidental to the story, and its true location is of course unknown. There is perhaps more than one traditional identification of the cave. Far from referencing them, the article doen't even mention them. A duly referenced article on them might be of value, but it would be a completely different article from what's there now.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elijah#Mt. Horeb: This article is an almost complete duplication of what already exists in that section of the Elijah article. No need to have a separate about a cave that was only a small section of his life unless you are telling me that every itty bitty detail of him, including the things he done and places went do, deserves an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sue Rangell. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 7 December 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 List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony

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

Non-notable music group is competing actively in the second season of The X Factor. Therefore, it fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The X Factor (U.S. season 2). To date, the group's notability seems to come entirely from the show, so a redirect seems appropriate until (if) they gain coverage independently. Gongshow ^Talk 17:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony. Based on the notability of this group, they don't need to have a separate page as of yet. If Fifth Harmony deserves to have a separate page, does it mean that we should all create pages for the rest of Top 16 finalists just because "they are finalists on a national television talent show and they have songs on iTunes store"? If that is the case, what's the use of this page List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)? This page is created for a reason!Yonglaytan (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Mostly per ApprenticeFan and Yonglaytan. The group are not notable outside of The X Factor, so WP:ONEEVENT applies. Having a huge fanbase doesn't change that either. - JuneGloom Talk 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've literally have been blocked from my IP address and wanted to let you know okay I give do whatever you want because I don't want to start a confrontation with you anemone projectors! I'm just really done with you so the battle is over cause I don't care like literally if I wasn't blocked I would have said that but since I was I'm saying that now. Happy? You want to delete it for whatever reason even though there are still people on here who opposite to it being redirected as well as people who agree with it. Another thing I noticed is that you feel as if you have more control over X Factor article's and that your opinion matters the most which in fact it doesn't? Your just a hater like all the others that oppose it and the only "real" reason why Carly Rose is the only contestant with an article is not because she's been in films and on broadway but because she is the most liked contestant on the X Factor. You might disagree with this but it's true! If that we're truly the case then we would also see Beatrice Miller and Diamond White with articles because clearly they have been in way more movies than she has. This is all not fair but its okay I'm allowing you to do what you want because like I said I'm done fighting a battle and just know that everyone does have input to say about X factor articles and their opinion's matter just as much as your does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.220.230 (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that the Carly Rose Sonenclar article was created well before she was a contestant on the X Factor. 121.217.248.211 (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I feel like 69.76.220.230's argument could be countered by WP:OTHERCRAP. Zappa O Mati 04:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 121.217.248.211 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exactly and the only reason why her's is still up there and all the others are not is because she is liked you still can't get around why she is the only contestant that has an article because you can't simply explain that "other contestants from the show are notable as well Beatrice Miller has had roles in movies such as Toy Story, Ice Age, and many famous movie but she can't have an article. I'm telling you how it is Carly Rose is not any more notable than The X Factor contestants. for example Normani Hamilton had an article that got taken down when she competeted on the show no one has said anything about that yet either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.220.230 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one vote per IP address, right? This user seems to have something against Carly Rose Sonenclar and brings her up in every discussion about Fifth Harmony. Carly Rose is irrelevant here.184.161.227.119 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAP appears to apply to this. Zappa O Mati 02:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Haromy will perform at the Jingle Jam on New Year's Eve that's something worth notable for outside of The X Factor. That's in front of millions of people as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs) 03:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC) — Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How are you so sure that there will be a million people, and can you provide a source for it? Zappa O Mati 02:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Until the group has success outside of The X-Factor, they should simply redirect to the list of contestants like the other groups this year do. They were formed on the X-Factor and are not widely known to those who don't watch the show. They may merit a page later, but they do not need one now. As the user below me states, the lone objector appears to be one IP address.184.161.227.119 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It appears that the lone objector here, using the IP address 69.76.220.230, is participating in block evasion. Indeed, he actually admits as much: "I've literally have been blocked from my IP address". 121.217.248.211 (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony - they are not notable outside of The X Factor so do not require a stand-alone article; an entry in the list of finalists is fine and they would still be included in Wikipedia. –anemone projectors– 13:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group has developed a huge fan base, have made it to the final 6, will perform in front of millions at the Jingle Jam on New Year's Eve, Normani is famous for modeling, the page has many resources. --Zannabanna (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, nothing that makes the band notable outside of The X Factor. –anemone projectors– 10:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You keep saying that these girls are not notable outside of The X Factor but yet no one has said anything about Normani Hamilton she is yes indeed in fact notable outside of The X Factor she is a beauty pageant contestant and has won various events in that and gymnastics as well and competes nationally. On the side she sings, acts, dances, and ballets. That sounds like a triple threat right there! I've said numerous times that yes at one point in time she did have an article just like little Carly Rose did but got deleted when she competed on the show. You ask and say that they are not notable well she is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs) 03:39, 4 December 2012‎‎ (UTC)— Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Then she should have her own article. A group is not famous simply because one of their members competed in pageants and gymnastics. There's a difference between experience and notability, just because someone has won a few events and competed nationally in gymnastics doesn't mean they should get their own page. I cannot find any sources about Fifth Harmony that are not X-Factor related (which is to be expected as they were formed on the show). This seems to be an open/shut case to me. Also, stop voting every time you comment, please. 184.161.227.119 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Teen Choice 2013 is thinking about nominating Fifth Harmony for a category and the category is still pending as we speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Multiple !votes from same user. 121.217.248.211 (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your source for this? I can't find anything about the Teen Choice Awards (for next year, which is months away) and their intentions to nominate Fifth Harmony for a category. Speculation is not good enough to keep a page.184.161.227.119 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 2)#Fifth Harmony - Not yet notable outside of The X Factor. Unless the group wins or becomes a finalist and does something notable outside of the show, not really notable now. Zappa O Mati 02:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that they are in fact finalists on the show and are notable for stuff you just assume that their not which is why we should keep this up! User:Welcometothenewmillenium
- Missed my point. Yes, they are finalists, but I meant in the top 3, as in the finale. Also, I'm not assuming they're not notable. I'm saying that they aren't notable outside of the show. Take notice of the word "for now". I'm not saying they're notable NOW, but they could be notable after the show, if they get a recording contract, etc. Zappa O Mati 04:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree 100% with what your saying! ;) User:Welcometothenewmillenium —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They made it to the simi-finals and are currently competiting in the top 4 right now. User:Welcometothenewmillenium 10:04 pm December 6, 2012 (UtC)

Which has no relevance as to whether they should remain as a separate article. 121.217.248.211 (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ZappaOMati said that if the girls make it all the way to top 3 or simi-finals that they should have their own article which they did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welcometothenewmillenium (talk • contribs)
- They shouldn't, because that would not change their notabilty. They would still not be notable outside of The X Factor. If they WIN, then yes, they can have a stand-alone article. –anemone projectors– 10:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I never said anything about the semifinals. Zappa O Mati 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not notable unless they win or release music in the future. Unreal7 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:NMUSIC or WP:ENT: "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following," "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself," "Has won or placed in a major music competition." WP:BIO1E is not the sole standard for notability, nor is it a relatively strict standard or one well-designed to apply to the nature of 21st century celebrity.

Fifteentholive (talk) 23:11, 7 December 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) 19:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sherby

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

Seems to be non-notable. Article claims he has released 6 singles and 2 albums and yet I can't find any evidence of this on discogs, and there's no info on what label they were released on. The article in its current form makes no assertion to his meeting WP:MUSIC. - filelake shoe  14:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING OR SPEEDY DELETING: Just realised that this article used to be about someone completely different and was just overwritten rather than disambiguated, in any case, both of these musicians appear to be non-notable. - filelake shoe  14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - filelake shoe  17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Non-notable musician and this article would already qualify for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Also, seems purely promotional. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO, zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources in English or Romanian. Altered Walter (talk) 15:29, 7 December 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) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Home (2013 film)

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

No evidence the film has entered production: per WP:NFF. Sources provided have nothing to do with this film BOVINEBOY2008 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom; article has been repeatedly sourced to sources not mentioning the film, some of which were apparently cut-and-paste from another film article. Fails WP:NFF, and no sign of substantially notability that would overcome that standards. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons. First off, the film does not look to have started filming. Secondly, casting doesn't even appear to be fully finished. Thirdly, the film hasn't received enough sources to show that it passes WP:NFF. All of the sources I've found say the same thing, that the two actors are to star in the film and even then, I doubt that all of these sources are really all that usable. I more used them to show that the film isn't a hoax and that it is supposed to happen. Until it receives more coverage, this will be a delete. I have no issue with someone wanting to userfy the article until that point. It's possible it could eventually pass notability guidelines once it releases, but until then it just doesn't pass.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not Notable fails WP:NFF --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For an unreleased film, it would be warrant inclusion if the production itself was notable. There is no evidence in the article of that and there are no reliable sources to be found. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A thing can exist and not (yet!) be notable. Once there are Reliable sources that discuss the production, or once the film's release is confirmed and imminent, an article might be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence the film is in production or has entered principal photography. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:50, 7 December 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) 19:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Seiwert

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

I am calling this blatant advertisement - notability is also in question All but one reference is to his groups home page, the other is to a blogSpot. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No evidence (or even claim) of notability, no independent references; appears to be self-promotion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not Notable. Puff Piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show subject passes WP:MANOTE. The article's sources are all his organization's web page, except for the one where he's not even mentioned. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, fails WP:GNG, and reads like a vanity page. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:50, 7 December 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.

Eleanor Leonne Bennett

The result was delete.. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 "keep" opinions argue that we should retain the article "despite the article lacks coverage in independent reliable sources", in one commentator's words, but per WP:V#Notability that's a no-go. If such sources can be procured, including Portuguese newspaper sources, as per the discussion between Salgado96 and Ritchie333, the article can be userfied and later recreated. Sandstein 09:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finished With My Ex

AfDs for this article:

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

Big promotional lovefest for this SoundCloud/BandCamp band. Falls short of notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing mostly by themselves or them talking about themselves. source 8 and 9 (at time of nomination) are independent but are unrelated to the band. Only other sources are a forum post (2) and Blog do Submarino which is trivial coverage and not a reliable source. I found nothing better. No sign of charting. No sign of major awards. Releases are self released free internet downloads, not on an important label. A little local airplay falls well short of national rotation. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage appears limited to blogs, forums, and social media pages. I'm unable to find material in independent reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. If deleted, please note the related album/song articles (listed at Finished With My Ex#Discography) which should also be deleted. Gongshow ^Talk 17:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources whatsoever, all referenced self published or insignificant stuff. Telling quote in the article is ""Studio time is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain."", which is of course because they don't have a record company to pay for it. Unsalvageable WP:GARAGE. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it's fair the article to be removed, because here, in Portugal, we don't have a lot of weblinks to justify when we write an article about portuguese bands (it's an example). Well, I have sources from newspappers that talk about the band... I noticed that Marilyn Manson's album "portrait of an american family" article's most information is taken from magazines, book, etc. I have newspappers here, but will they work as good sources? By the way, "Studio time is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain" sentence was taken from an article here in wikipedia about independent music, where a band from australia, "X-bloom" (which works the same way "Finished With My Ex" does), made a "complete proof-of-concept" album with no budget and they said "Studio time is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain", so I used it to justify the band's options. This band is also likely to sign to a label, since their working on their debut studio album and they said it was going to be "a big deal", since they would going to record the songs in a studio, just like Bruce explained during the July interview to Guimarães Radio. Oh, and their just not a "soundcloud/bandCamp band", they just feel comfortable with releasing music independently, just like Trent Reznor or Radiohead do. Their actually pretty known in Guimarães and Braga city, since the vocalist is from Guimaraes and the others members from Braga. Please help me. Thank you, -- Salgado96. 21:19, 30 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I sounded like I'm being confrontational, but if you follow the link to WP:GARAGE, you'll see why it's easy to assume that if a band article doesn't have any references to reliable sources, it's likely not to have any at all, and hence not be notable. I think all of the references cited in the article are self-published, such as blogs, the band's own website, Twitter etc. and when I did a web search for the band's name, all I could really find was a selection of YouTube videos, which are generally (though I argued against one specific case recently) considered unreliable. For what it's worth, I play in a band that does about 60-70 shows a year, and make enough money out of it for the taxman to tap on my shoulder, but there is not a single reliable source that talks about it so it can't have an article on Wikipedia. It's not important what the likelihood of you singing to an album is, until you are and have a couple of records released in the usual commercial channels, ideally hitting the charts, you probably won't pass the notability guidelines for musicians. See WP:TOOSOON for an explanation of why some things just can't have an article now, even though they might in the future.

Now, having said all of that, if you do have lots of newspaper coverage of the band, they can be used as reliable sources, and print sources are certainly acceptable - see WP:CITEHOW for information on this. Print sources are some of the best sources you can use - I'm currently going through Keith Moon picking out bits from two well known book sources. But the group won't generally be considered notable enough unless that's repeated exposure in the major national press such as Rolling Stone or New Musical Express. There are so many non-notable bands bouncing around that the barrier to get them in their own article on Wikipedia is quite high. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the help Ritchie333! :) but, how can I "use" the newspapers as references? just write a line and then write the reference like "taken from Newspaper "blah blah blha", on "xx day, yy month yy year", etc."? The newspapers are not that known in the whole world (Portugal doesn't have much, unfortunately, its a country that doesn't give importance to culture and arts nowadays), but their like the most famous newspapers in the city of Guimaraes, besides, Guimaraes is now a city full cosmopolitanism, since it is the 2012 European Capital of Culture and has been promoting their local bands through these newspapers, "Finished With My Ex" is one of those :) "Submarino" is a group of producers and "radio people" that take care of that, and the band gave the interview to them as being part of the revelation bands of the city, you know :) ... I think if you search information for the 2012 European capital of culture, you will find a lot of information connected with the music that it's made in this region. As for the way the radio and social communications use blogs, forum, etc to promote themselves, its probably because the production can't afford an independent website, just like most musicians in Portugal. Example, Slimmy, a musician from Oporto, Portugal, became known for making a revolution in the "post-CD era" in Portugal, he started supporting the independent musicians and now, there are lot of known Portuguese bands, like Xutos&pontapes, following his example... Finished With My Ex is one of them :) Thank you very much again, waiting feedback. --Salgado96 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start with the sources. Find as many newspaper and magazine articles as you can, ideally those that have nationwide coverage. You need to have several of them, quite how much "several" is really depends on what people currently voting "delete" will satisfy a demonstration of notability, but I would recommend getting hold of as much as you possibly can. Nevertheless, without having any national chart success, I don't fancy your chances on getting a consensus that the band is notable - most bands that are worthy of notice have had some chart success somewhere in the world at some point in their career, even if it's two weeks at number 97. The only British band I can think of that's had a long standing Wikipedia article without any chart hits whatsoever is Dumpy's Rusty Nuts, and they're only really notable because they were a standing joke in the Melody Maker. Don't go anywhere near Facebook, Soundcloud, YouTube etc. - that won't help keep an article. Since this is a Portuguese band, you might have more success asking on the Portuguese Wikipedia. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the article lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, I understand Salgado96's situation, since here in Portugal is true that most social communications work that way... Either way, I know the band and I've already seen it live in Guimaraes, but honestly I didn't really like their performance, they're too "shocking",,, but that's just my opinion... As for their "fame" they've been appearing in several newspapers around here, but those newspapers are not that known, but I think they can work as sources, but I'm not sure. User:Portugalmade —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think we're here to discuss our musical opinion about the band. It's your opinion, keep it to yourself and start doing what's more important here. Thank you, User:Salgado96. 19.02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep or re-edit - well, I have the idea to say to keep the article, because I agree with both Portuguese users, if it is not possible, I thought about re-editing the article, by putting less information, the information that are taken from reliable sources (or something close to that. By the way, Portugalmade, you honestly don't understand the band's concepts, I also don't like their style, find it a bit excessive, but their shows are amazing and they work a lot for their music and shows. I think you shouldn't talk when you don't anything (or almost nothing) about the band. Fiftim (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive? Don't you like Rammstein?? (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you two stop with that? I'm worried about my work, that toke me a hundred years to write, which will probably be DELETED! ANd you guys are not helping! I mean, you're both voting to keep the article, but your opinions about your favorite bands, etc. have no purpose here! (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is to delete, the closing administrator will usually put a copy of the article in your userspace if you request it, as long as it's not blatant copyright violations or an attack page (which this isn't). So don't worry too much about losing work. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to meet CSD G11 and A7; there's no justification for it to be kept. Delete. -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:27, 8 December 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 Cimarron. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cimmarron

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

A topic about a boat brand that likely fails WP:N. Several searches, including customized ones such as [18] and [19] are not yielding any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cimarron for people can't spell; the boats aren't notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cimarron per Roscelese; there really aren't enough independent sources to ascertain notability for the line of boats. dci | TALK 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Note I've created Cimmarron Boats as a redirect to Cabela's, which seems reasonable (and is, in fact, the actual name of the company/product), making this redundant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 6 December 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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiromi Hirata

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

Article is on an obscure Japanese singer. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 06:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the editor of this page and believe that she is notable. First, according to WP:MUSICBIO, she would be notable if she has had a release on a national music chart. Refer to her page on Oricon at [20] and you will find that her releases have charted at 21st and 23rd. Moreover, she would be considered notable by virtue of WP:ENTERTAINER, having had significant roles in multiple series such as in Idolmaster, Zoids, and Read or Die. -- Opheicus | Talk 02:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if a particular singer is obscure, if her singles have charted, and/or her music was used in several works, then she is automatically notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Of course, more sources are appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Cavarrone (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article still needs more reliable sourcing to comply with WP:BLP, but the subject appears to satisfy the basic notability criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER. --DAJF (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple major roles for characters establish notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have stated, the subject specific guidelines of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER have been met. Dream Focus 01:42, 5 December 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) 19:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PRECISACOL

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

While I am not an expert on Bridge, this convention has only been devised recenetly, and to quote the article itself "The system has not been acknowledged by the World Bridge Federation yet, and effectiveness has to be proven still." Travelbird (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article creator There are countless bridge systems that have been devised and not been acknowledged by the world bridge federation, yet they are being played nonetheless (e.g. club tournaments). Wether or not all of these systems make a valid entry for Wikipedia or not, should not be judged by the fact if it is (not yet) acknowledged by an organization that speaks on behalf of a huge population for reasons being obvious. The article does indeed state that effectiveness has to be proven yet, but that does not make it an ineffective system before anything is proven. Fact remains that this system is played and that according to the players themselves, the system has more advantages than disadvantages

Precisacol1988 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by article creator EDIT: I have received a mail from the World Bridge Federation.

"Dear Sir,

The World Bridge Federation does not endorse or acknowledge bridge systems. Players at WBF events are free to choose their own system, within specific parameters according to the event, details of which can be found in the WBF Systems Policy (http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBFInformation/policies-regulations/WBFSystemsPolicy.pdf )

Best regards Anna"

Precisacol1988 (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article for a non-notable topic created by a promotional user name representing a group (which I have reported). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Precisacol1988 has been perma-blocked as promotional. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Absolutely non notable. A case could be made for CSD G11 here as well. Safiel (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 December 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 The Real Housewives. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Housewives of Dallas

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

Andy Cohen, the Executive Vice President of Development and Talent of Bravo, confirmed back in March that The Real Housewives of Dallas is not happening. (http://twitter.com/BravoAndy/status/180307275909570561) Recollected (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: You need a better source than Twitter, however it does appear this deserves little more than a mention in the The Real Housewives article. Faustus37 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Faustus37. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw this nomination per the information provided by Users Lexein and Michig below, and thanks for demonstrating this band's notability. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy & the Mustangs

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

It's unclear if the topic meets Wikipedia:Notability (music). Google News archives and Books searches provide passing mentions, (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) but not finding significant coverage. It doesn't appear that this band has charted, so the topic may also fail WP:BAND. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found one full LATimes show review & cited it. Waiting for fulltext. --Lexein (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band released two albums back in the early 80s, one on MCA Records,[26] and more in recent years. They appeared on television, on M3,[27] Thicke of the Night,[28][29] and on the CBS sitcom Square Pegs.[30][31] Their track "Justine" was used in the soundtrack of the film Voyage of the Rock Aliens. Further coverage: Billboard, LA Times, LA Times. Important enough for an article and satisfies at least 2 criteria of WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Now we haveta put this stuff in the article, I guess (hands in pocket, shoegazes). --Lexein (talk) 16:47, 1 December 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 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry classics to funky beats

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

Appears to be a self-published mp3. No evidence of notability. maclean (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic title, written in an unencyclopedic matter, and the topic is not notable enough for its own article.--RM (Be my friend) 05:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any significant coverage on the subject. The article itself doesn't make any indication of notability. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable PianoDan (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, unencyclopedic. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nominator. Not Notable, could not meet significant coverage. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage found, no evidence of notability. — sparklism ^hey! 08:07, 4 December 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 News International phone hacking scandal. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of news media phone hacking scandal civil suits, payments and commercial consequences

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

Fails WP:NOT. More specifically, it may conflict with being a list of facts or events (directory like) that are not valid for inclusion. I look forward to discussion. T.I.M^(Contact) 00:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)T.I.M^(Contact) 23:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge where appropriate, WP:NOT applies here in the sense that this is a collection of (mostly) non-notable one-time events. Sure, a few have been all over the news but by-and-large I don't feel they should all be listed or given attention. I'd userify and ask the original creator to merge information as needed to other articles if they don't already contain the information. This is never going to be anything else than a large list of external links. §FreeRangeFrog 03:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or delete "News media phone hacking scandal reference lists" - This article was split from News media phone hacking scandal reference lists due to size. If this article should be deleted per WP:NOT, it should not be added back into News media phone hacking scandal reference lists. Is there any reason why News media phone hacking scandal reference lists is not at WP:AfD?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to News International phone hacking scandal. The article covers the "consequences" of the content discussed in that main article. Lord Roem (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lord Roem. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not Notable and title reads like an SEO keyword list --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, is there any reason why News media phone hacking scandal reference lists is not at WP:AfD?--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss merging. It should probably be merged (as suggested above), but the content will simply be lost if deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 6 December 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 submersible pump . MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submersible pump cable

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

Contested notability. Merge to submersible pump or delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also some discussion at Talk:Submersible_pump#Merge of Submersible pump cable

keep clearly notable as a separate topic since it passes WP:GNG with two independent sections of works on this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources discussing this sub topic establish its notability per GNG without the need for a larger topic scope. --No unique names 04:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge & redirect) - this may not seem an exciting topic, but it is properly sourced and can stand. Whether it needs to be stand-alone or would be better merged with submarine pump is a matter of opinion; either way, the search term is useful and should be retained at least as a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and the references support this. Editorially it should certainly be merged with submersible pump but that is quite another matter and no reason for deletion (indeed technically it is a reason against deletion). Thincat (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Note to other !voters: the presence of sources does not confer notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:49, 3 December 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hardly Strictly Bluegrass performers and lineups

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

Originally PRODed with the reason "Unencyclopedic list. The festival may be notable, but a historical list of who performed there? Not really.". The list's creator has admitted on the talk page that no independent sources exist for the topic. Independent, reliable sources are required to show notability. If none exist, then the topic is not separately notable from the festival itself. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To be a candidate for page deletion, there must be a specific violation of wikipedia guidelines. The author who has nominated this page for deletion has stated the opinion that a historical list of performers is "not really" notable. That is not a specific reason or specific violation. On the other hand, I (the list's creator) will list several specific reasons why the page should not be deleted:
- The information on this page complies with the general [Wikipedia:Notability guidelines] now that I have added several independent sources that verify the fact that multiple articles are written about the festival's lineup at least for several years. In fact, many news outlets write about the lineup every single year, and Google searches will verify that fact. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to add inline citations for every year since 2001, but I encourage others to do so. In any case, I've now added sufficient references and inline citations to prove notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability: "significant coverage in reliable [i.e. mainstream news media] secondary sources".
- Additionally, nothing about this page is listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
- Stepping beyond Wikipedia's formal guidelines, another reason this page does not warrant deletion is the precedent set by the many Wikipedia pages related to broadcast series which contain lists of episodes, including when they aired and who performed in them. Similarly, this page of a list of performances, when they occurred, and who performed them.
- Jmattthew (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Festival is the topic. Which is not to say this list is necessarily appropriate, just that the nominator isn't analyzing it in a meaningful way, because just because this list is formatted as a separate web page from the main Festival article (purely for WP:SIZE reasons) does not mean that it is a separate topic. If this were simply included as a section within Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, what would be the reasons for maintaining it or removing it? Because the same analysis should govern here.
One concern I have is regarding the notability of the performers. Without wikilinks, it's difficult to see how many of these performers have articles, but doing a quick sample of some of the names I don't recognize indicates many do not, and that negatively impacts upon the informational value of the list. Perhaps only the notable performers should be listed? postdlf (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like excessive content, not completely sourced, but there are enough significant names, and a few independent sources, to justify its existence. I agree that the performers make it notable. all notable names need to be blue linked (and referenced), and nonotable names have a citation from at least the festival info online to show they played. independent sources for each name, i dont think, are strictly necessary, but independent sources for each years show is.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial and unencyclopedic. The festival itself might be notable, a massive and exhaustive list of everyone who's ever sat on stage there is not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough sourced content here to keep the list. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator is quite correct there are no reliable secondary sources that significantly cover this subject. Rotten regard Softnow 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borders on obsessive Fancruft. Obscure listings of mostly obscure acts. Should we also copy the "Book of Lists" into the article space? GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Skateboards

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

This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage in Google News archives consists of passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This book calls it a seminal company, and even in the passing mentions it is treated as a household item (note that Blind Skateboards is also the name of their team), for example [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] — Frankie (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided above, as well as this piece in Transworld Snowboarding are enough for me to consider it probably meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think Africa Press

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted on April 2012 for lack of notability, and no new significant secondary sources on it seem to have appeared. As with last time, the article relies almost entirely on reprints of the organization's initial press release (hosted at allafrica.com and modernghana.com), and Think Africa Press's own website. The new sources I see are a mention in a long list at world-newspapers.com (seems doubtful as a reliable source), and a link in The Guardian 's 25 Global development blogosphere blogs. The last is a little more persuasive, but it's still just two sentences of coverage in a single source--doesn't seem like enough to meet the WP:GNG. Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 24 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 24. Snotbot t • c » 18:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tidied the refs to distinguish primary from secondary and remove repetitions. It is also worth noting that a Guardian search turns up quite a range of quotations from Think Africa in articles. AllyD (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, all of the 9 mentions appear to come after The Guardian invited them to be one of a few dozen blogs in their "global development blogosphere".[37] I suppose providing content to the Guardian is a step toward notability, but is it possible to find any mentions in reliable sources that aren't directly affiliated? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created the article with independent sources, but it was set for speedy deletion without a comment or review of the sources, I contested it and was removed. Im not sure why it is not meeting notability guidelines in terms of new type of news org and reception.--MsTingaK (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC) moved by User:Khazar2 from page of previous deletion nom[reply]

Not a big deal, but just to keep the record clear, this article was never nominated for speedy deletion (an AfD nomination is different), and my comments above have been here as long as the nomination has. For more information about how the deletion process works, you can see the links to Wikipedia's deletion policies in the template on the top of the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 25 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) 19:46, 31 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) 19:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relister comment - This discussion has been going on for a long time and not many opinions have been shared but I feel since this is already the second nomination that it should be open for longer to try and get some discussion. If anyone disagrees with this relist, feel free to close the discussion as "No consensus" per "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting again. If this does end up closed by default (as seems likely), is there another forum I should take this to? It seems a shame to have no opinions here besides myself and the article's creator. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's always difficult to establish the notability of a news resource, as they aren't often discussed in depth by other news resources. I tend to agree with the essay WP:Notability (media) that being frequently cited by other reliable sources helps to establish notability, and Think Africa Press are fairly frequently cited. Granted, mostly by the Guardian, but I think their involvement in the "global development blogosphere" means that they are "considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area", another of the notability criteria suggested in that essay. A marginal case, perhaps, but I think they just about scrape through. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly nobody other then the creator is prepared to defend this page, the entire continent of Africa ignored it, it has been relisted several times, and got ignored by the world. It should go. Leng T'che (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me this is probably promotional. The question hinges on whether or not the slim coverage by The Guardian is sufficient to establish notability. I would say not, since I couldn't find anything else. IOW, there are no multiple sources of independent coverage. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON perhaps, but right not I'm not seeing it. §FreeRangeFrog 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added at least one independent academic source - http://blogs.arcadia.edu/arcadiaupdates/2012/11/arcadia-directors-work-published-by-think-africa-press/--98.233.56.126 - they are feeding content to AllAfrica.com and other major news sources. They seem to be doing well. (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing it, but how do you see this an "independent source"? It's from a promotional blog for a sub-college of Arcadia University, one of whose faculty members just published in TAP. As a side note, please be aware that cutting and pasting content from another source is a copyright violation; it's important to summarize material in your own words, or use quotation marks with attribution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the last few days the article's been active with new accounts that appear to have been created for the sole purpose of adding questionable references, such as passing mentions in other blogs and quotations from TAP's press release. I removed some of this, and I was reverted by another brand-new account without discussion. This AfD's now been running for more than six weeks without anyone providing even one reliable source that isn't a business partner of or contributor to TAP. (Remember, the Guardian is in business with the site.) I'm a bit frustrated that this process can't seem to resolve, and I think it's time to wash my hands of it and unwatch this discussion and the article. Thanks to everybody who commented. Best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone needs to put this one out of its misery. It's fairly obvious that there are a bunch of SPAs here trying to cram every possible URL that even mentions this organization into the references to make it appear as if it's notable. It wasn't the first time it was up for AFD, and it's not now. §FreeRangeFrog 20:30, 6 December 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 Burning Man. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri La Village

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, and as a group of theme camps at Burning Man, also Wikipedia:Notability (events). Not finding significant coverage of this topic in reliable secondary sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to keep the links to (primary) sources and attribution. This is really marginally notable, but would be useful for our core readership. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy Meateaters

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

This topic about a former band from Rome, Georgia appears to fail WP:BAND. Source searching reveals blog coverage and passing mentions in news sources, but not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the lack of sources and the "shared the stage" namedropping certainly don't help, the band did play on the Vans Warped Tour and had a track on the hit album Vans Warped Tour 2002 Compilation (11 weeks on the Billboard 200, peaked at #55),[38] so there may be sources that are not online. Unless anyone can find some though, we don't really have much on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 15:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Die Tour

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

I know I created the page but I am now nominating it for deletion as the "Born to Die Tour" isn't really a tour and it has also never been called that officially. teammathi (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per request from author. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has had months of edits by other accounts so it cannot be Speedied simply at the request of the article creator. Meters (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The data in it might be added as a "Live Performances" section in either the Lana Del Rey or the Born to Die album pages, which would then make the separate article redundant RGCorris (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - It's been a month with no improvements. Let's just plain old delete it.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here we go again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:14, 1 December 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 The Diamond Brothers. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blurred Man

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While The Blurred Man doesn't have any reviews of its own I can find, it is reviewed as part of Horowitz's Three of Diamonds short story compilation. It seems the articles contents would do better there. Faustus37 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Three of Diamonds. Along with the other two stories that make up that collection. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Three of Diamonds (collection) - I haven't found any reliable and relevant sources to establish notability. The Three of Diamonds article itself looks like it needs a rewrite so I may check later to see if that collection is notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this was released as a stand-alone book long before its release in the collection Three Of Diamonds. Three Of Diamonds does not deserve its own article and should only be mentioned in the articles for the three stories, not the other way around.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Blurred Man isn't independently notable; if this article isn't to be merged or redirected somewhere, it should be deleted. It should not be kept as-is without a demonstration of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Neelix (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough." (Wikipedia:How to delete a page) Happy Evil Dude (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is sort of what this AfD is about, we look for sources. No one has been able to find any sources. If you think there are sources that would be great, they can be added to the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what kind of sources are you looking for exactly? Proof that the book exists? Come on! You've got that in abundance. The information in the article is sound and none of it appears to necessitate back up sources IMO. There is one small error in that the article states the book was published in 2003 when it was actually published in 2002. I remember that each of the three short stories initially came out that year packaged to one of the Diamond Brothers novels (The Blurred Man with Falcon's Malteser and so forth) as still evidenced here. I assume the 2003 release is when they were available in stand-alone form before being collected in Three Of Diamonds in 2004. Seeing as how the short-stories were released in their own £2.99 books a whole two years before being collected together I find it extremely awkward to merge them together in a single article about that anthology, as though that was their initial presentation. While it is true that it seems impossible to find an online professional review of the book, why is that a criteria? If a work doesn't have reviews, it doesn't have reviews, what can you do? As it stands, The Blurred Man is an installment in one of the most popular series of one of the most popular and bestselling authors of Young Adult fiction. Which, in my opinion makes it very much notable.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all books are appropriate for Wikipedia. Only those that are Notable. Notability is defined at WP:NBOOK. Take a close look over the 5 paths to notability in that rule. The closing admin will do the same, they will decide the case based on that rule. So we have to make a case using NBOOK as the basis for argument. Typically it's done with NBOOK #1 using multiple book reviews. I think what you are arguing for is NBOOK #5, that the author is so notable that any book is automatically notable. Unfortunately this will probably not pass since very few authors reach this level on Wikipedia. Stephen King for example is not at that level. It's typically for long dead authors, like Mark Twain or Charles Dickens, where historical significance is beyond doubt. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 12:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Diamond Brothers, per WP:NBOOK. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 4 December 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 23:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brushwood Folklore Center

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

Non-notable campground used occasionally for nude body-painting, and New Age arts and craft shows, and witchcraft seminars, and open-air sorcery conventions, and non-notable music festivities, and outdoor dosing stations, and sparsely attended Wicca coordinations, and often featuring a line of porta-potties for visiting high-level Druids. I wish I was making this stuff up. Anyway, it's not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, etc. Qworty (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sources to support it, even if not incorporated. GNG. --No unique names 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is so brief that under other circumstances I would be inclined to say delete. However, the comment "open-air sorcery conventions" in this delete nomination, and the overall tone I've seen recently in other delete nominations, destroys Qworty's credibility. I also find it personally offensive. So for now, I must strongly insist on keep. Folklore1 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't really see enough sourcing, and if all these events are held there, the sourcing oght to be available. DGG ( talk ) 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a family campground. The most notable event it had has moved years ago. Nothing in the article really supports notability enough. If the facility itself hosts any notable acts, editors have yet to show that. The only reasons to keep it seems to be that no one likes the way Qworty nominated it in the first place, and that's not good enough.Oddio (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Oddio. I see nothing notable about this campground. It's primary event, Sirius Rising, was the only thing it had left that MIGHT have been notable. Most of the references seem to be passing mentions, and the "Thing in the Woods" link seems to be a commercial one that advertises a very minor 10-year-old event that no longer even takes place at Brushwood. JuliusAaron (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FundRazr

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

The subject of this article appears to fail to meet the general notability guideline, despite its rather prolific marketing department. I was not able to locate any reliable sources that are intellectually independent of the subject matter, though there are a plethora of spammy pseudo sources similar to those I recently removed from the article (earlier version is here for reference) and lots of Google hits to primary sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hideous piece of WP:SPAM. The only thing missing from this advertisement is their 1-800 number. Qworty (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content provided on this page followed guidelines and exactly the model of countless other companies sharing factual information for the Wikipedia audience. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoFundMe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiegogo. While I work for FundRazr, all points were referenced with objective external sources. Any brand on Wikipedia was likely started by that brand, let's be realistic. The only internal sources were public pages showing the notable projects mentioned with proof of the amount raised.

The tone of the editor VQuakr does not appear to show any neutrality as opioninated language is used "prolific marketing department" etc. How is removing source references to media sources like "Read, Write, Web" or "TechVibes" the neutral activity of an objective editor. Look at the 2 examples above which follow exactly the same approach, as do thousands of other posts. This raises the question of neutrality and why FundRazr is being singled out - what connections does VQuakr have...Bretzky63 (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the AfD talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - haven't looked anything up other than the user's talk page - and there's a clear conflict of interest here. (Bretzky63 registered as Fundrazrbret originally) Lukeno94 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the company's "team" page - I don't think anyone is trying to hide anything. Stalwart111 13:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SPAM...why wasn't this speedy deleted before? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improve I was able to find three references that were primarily about Fundrazr.[39] [40][41] This supports notability. If the article could be edited based on these article, it might be worth keeping.----Nowa (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a major cleanup of the site. Candid comments and additional edits are welcome.--Nowa (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I appreciate some work has been done to clean this up but the fact remains that it exists purely to WP:PROMO the subject - written by the subject's marketing manager (please see WP:COI) who offers only an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument for keeping this. I'm not excited about the blog reference, but the guy writing it seems reasonably credible. One of the other references really isn't coverage of the subject - it is coverage of an event that the subject's CEO attented. The few lines he snuck in about his company couldn't possibly be considered "significant coverage". The other blogs-for-sources aren't great either but there's one or two reliable sources in there. I'm not so convinced it completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH so badly that I strongly favour deletion. All in all, a great lesson on how not to use Wikipedia for company PR. Stalwart111 13:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I still feel the article is sufficiently cleaned up with appropriate references for notability for a keep.--Nowa (talk) 18:36, 4 December 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lowepro

AfDs for this article:

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

Reason: Promotion. And: Notability of the whole company not seen. Article surely created by paid contractors. Tagremover (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ I agree that this article appears to have been created to promote this company, almost certainly as part of undisclosed paid editing. However, the company is likely to be notable as their products are well known and widely available. I've removed the clearly spammy prose from the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks better but: There are SO MANY companies worldwide in this or larger size, even with worldwide sold consumer products. I do not see the need of any bags listed. And the company is irrelevant. Tagremover (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many such companies. If people wish to create articles on them according to the policies of Wikipedia, they are free to do so. (And irrelevant to what?) -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the company is probably notable, this article appears to have been created in bad faith as part of an advertisement for the firm and I don't trust any of its content. As such, unless someone wants to re-write this article WP:TNT is in order. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is notable[42][43][44][45][46]; article may have been created to promote the company but that's not relevent: it is incomplete but generally factual and largely concerned with corporate history rather than making unsupported claims about how wonderful the company is. I'm not sure what facts Nick-D has trouble believing, but specific issues can be dealt with by using tags, without deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to have started as a PR puff, but it is so no longer. Sourcing still isn't marvelous but it has improved quite a bit. -- Hoary (talk) 01:37, 2 December 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Collectors

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

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account for the purpose of promoting Independent Collector. Has a few links but they seem to be trivial coverage or mentions.. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. Hu12 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleared the article of the worst of the promotional prose and I'll see what sources I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forward this,the advertising was removed so lets wait for this user to find sources.74.178.177.227 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the considerable effort that Tokyogirl79 has put into cleaning the article up, it is still substantially promotional, and although there is a significant number of sources, most either give only brief mention of the subject, or else are clearly promotional or otherwise not independent sources. One doesn't mention it at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't mention it at all: If you are referring to this, check the second page, there is some pretty substantial coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a brief mention amounting to six sentences, two of which are a quote from someone from "Independent Collectors" and the statement that it is a quote from her. I find "pretty substantial coverage" a surprising description of that. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was initially uncertain here, on the basis that while some of the references are from self-promotional websites, and one does not mention Independent Collectors, some do appear do be from reputable third party sources. But the basically promotional nature of the article is blatant.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "promotional nature of the article" a content issue which can be fixed by normal editing? --Cerebellum (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the original author of the article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am a tad confused as the article was only approved yesterday and now already up for deletion. I am attempting to add more references and to keep my tone as neutral as possible.Inge_1985 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the one who approved this article at AfC. There are actually a fair number of solid sources for this, but most of them aren't in English - see [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and [53]. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one at Zeit Online is the one mentioned above, where, as I said, there are just a few sentences, in the course of an article not substantially about "Independent Collectors". The one from El Pais likewise has just a brief mention of "Independent Collectors" in a long article. I am not 100% confident of the independence of some of the others: for example, "International Business Times" looks to me very much like one of the many business promotion sites that publish write-ups on behalf of clients, though I admit it is difficult to be sure. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See International Business Times. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick note, the article above from www.vanguardia.com.mx is a reproduction of this article from El País. To add to these sources (which already hint heavily at notability) there's also a few dedicated articles [54] [55] [56], one with significant coverage even though the focus is not the subject [57], one passing mention [58], and two interviews [59] [60]. While we're at it, it seems that their art guide is notable as well [61] [62] [63] [64] — Frankie (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial entry was promotional, however the second revision by Tokyogirl79 seems to strip it down far too much, taking away essential information that could otherwise have been useful if changed into a non-promotional format. Notability has been sufficiently provided using sources in German, Spanish, Italian and English with sufficient merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sth0nianHo (talk • contribs) 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the only edit made by Sth0nianHo. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree with JamesBWatson. --Shorthate (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jasoosi Dunya (New)

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

This page has a list of the books written by Ibne Safi. Nevertheless, it is more of a catalogue of “Asrar Publishers-Lahore,” which has lately published omnibus volumes containing multiple books, than a books information page. Another page "List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old)" contains a more appropriate and comprehensive list of all the 126 books inked by the author. It, therefore, is strongly recommended that this page shall be deleted and the "List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old)" should be renamed only as "List of Jasoosi Dunya." StarryEyed (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom on reason for deletion. Take it a step further and merge the list of novels (List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old)) into the series article (Jasoosi Dunya). A series article normally includes the list of books in the series(!) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Empire Elite

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

Proposed for deletion in October 2012 for notability concerns and lack of independent sources. It still lacks such sources. Of the five currently cited sources, two are the game's own documentation, two are passing mentions in stories about its creator, and one does not mention the game at all, but describes BBS games in general. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but primary sources and passing mentions. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I disagree about primary sources and passing mentions. it was listed as inspiration from other games that were CLONES of SEE. I would however, like to see more references to give this article more credibility --Bbsjoey (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being an inspiration for notable games does not make it notable in and of itself. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant game: it is one of the early works of Jon Radoff, and influenced the creators of Solar Realms Elite and Barren Realms Elite, respectively. The dearth of sources reflects only the lack of scholarship into this area of gaming at this moment. It does not change the fact that this is a significant game worthy of its own article. Kirkman (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability is determined by the depth of coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not the game is important or significant doesn't come into it; reliable sources have to be available. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several reliable sources cited on that article right now. Five citations is better than thousands of other similar articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkman (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you click the word "notability" that DoctorKubla linked to you can read the general notability guideline. It's short and relatively straightforward.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Space Empire Elite does have six articles in the references section, but two are not independent, three make only passing mentions of the game, and one does not mention the game at all. This does not seem to constitute significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnilep (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game didn't have documentation and it was written by independent third parties, there are also other independent sources that have been discounted because they have experience playing the game. This is a lot of dirty politics to discredit sources and citations because of a personal bias to get the article deleted. I call foul, and hope that others notice these dirty tricks. Orion Blastar (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I find all this notability stuff ridiculous. The "reliable sources" that Wikipedia wants (books, magazine articles, etc) are going to be built from the very sources Wikipedia will not allow: first-person interviews, usenet postings, game documentation, and the like. It's totally circular and smells more or less like a witch-hunt. Someone wants to remove articles in order to score political WP editing points. But in the end, a disservice will have been done. This article is factual, sourced, and relevant. Space Empire Elite is a foundational BBS door game that influenced numerous other games. It is an early work of a notable game author, Jon Radoff. It deserves a place on Wikipedia. Kirkman (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue here is not notability, it is that it existed before the Internet Era, so it must be deleted. Most of the independent sources on it are from BBS Systems and Boardwatch Magazine which went out of business when the Internet took over BBSes. But books and magazines are not reliable enough for Wikipedia anymore. Burn all the Pre-Internet stuff, because 1990's kids never heard of it before. I feel bad that I have donated money to Wikipedia to see the sorry state it now exists as a censorship machine to delete all of the Pre-Internet articles simply because they don't have enough Independent Internet references. Well what Pre-Internet tech does these days? Most of the web sites on Pre-Internet tech have gone down. I state that there is a big personal bias here, and bias should not be a part of the Wikipedia process. But then even Conservapedia is more credible than Wikipedia these days Use with caution: The perils of Wikipedia Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits Fake 'expert' scandal forces Wikipedia to review editor policy Too many scandals to name Apparently the article writer did not pay Wikipedia staff to highlight their article nor bribe an editor with fake degrees to forge citations using pen names to boost the notability and credibility of the article. Orion Blastar (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was notable in the BBS Era, and it has influenced modern social network games. It is still in use with Telnet BBSes. Maybe you should delete the article on Tradewars as well, even if it too is still being played on Telenet BBSes and they made it into a modern Win32 Telenet Server game. I guess the DOS based Castle Wolfenstein 3D too is non-notable as is Infocom's Zork series? If you haven't heard about it, despite several sources cited, I guess it is non-notable? Orion Blastar (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important part of BBS history before the Internet age. What next, delete the article on the Commodore 64 and Apple //? Too old for Wikipedia? Before Facebook and social networking games, we had games like this and the BBS was the original social network. This game is still being played on BBSes that use Telenet now, and if they use Linux they run DOSEMU to run DOS based Games/Doors under the Linux BBS. The BBS has not died, just evolved into Telnet based services. The BBS Documentary didn't cover this, but I think it should have. BBS Games were an important part of BBSes and BBS Users loved to play them. If this article is deleted, I will lose respect for Wikipedia. The same thing was done to my edits of the Amiga article, even if I used books for citation. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jon Radoff. The topic is not notable: none of the sources support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG unless offline RS are unearthed. I've previously suggested merging articles like this (those that individually may not be notable enough for their own articles) into a more comprehensive overview of BBS door games. czar · · 08:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We start our research with Wikipedia and will be upset if articles like this are deleted. Gaming is an important part of both our culture and GNP now. Deleting this would be like deleting early movie titles just because they're not being screened any more. Some may regard this as a trivial amusement, but it's a critical part of the history of one of our now major industries. If you are troubled by the lack of sources and citations, mark it as "needs improvement" and we will try to get to it - in a year or three. but please do not delete the attempts to chronicle the history of the gaming community. I can understand the argument for moving it to a comprehensive article on BBS Door Games and have no problem with that iff all the games are listed with at least this much information per game, but that's only a short step to "this article is too long and should be split . . ." I'm sure you know how that goes. People look for games by name, and most won't even recognize the words "BBS Door Games." Judith Haemmerle, Executive director, Digital Game Museum, Sunnyvale, CA. 10:55, 27 November, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopalia (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a freelance writer doing research for (pro) articles on e-communications in the 70s-90s, I'd say that the info in the above comments, the article & its links indicate that it has the same notability as the many pre-Internet-era offline games in WP that were popular and influenced future creations in their genre. At the moment, the only way to know whether it's truly notable would be to have a reasonable amount of knowledge/expertise on the topic of BBSes or pre-Internet e-games -- with no disrespect intended, do the individuals recommending deletion have that information? I have enough to know that I want more info so I can include it in my work, and plan to contribute the results of my research, I can say that much... If the real problem is that the article lacks references & needs other work, then according to Wikipedia's docs, that's why we have the tags to alert research-oriented types like me passing by. (As a side note: if it's applicable, I'm likely going to use parts or all this comment on a couple of other contested articles to save myself time.) Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Although it may have been a popular game, we do not have sufficient verifiable evidence to establish its notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is mentioned in a number of books as a notable game in the history of game development (just checked Google books) Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Google Books does indeed show nine books mentioning the game, but seven of them are Wikipedia scrapes and the other two are the books by Mark Wolf currently cited on the page. Cnilep (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from some of the snippy remarks made, this game was not notable even back in the BBS era. I'm old enough to remember. Tradewars, Wolfenstein, and Zork are all names that became legendary, and we still hear about them even today. You can still find "Remember when?" articles that mention those games. Those articles fail to mention this game. That is why it isn't notable. This game doesn't make that cut. It was a just another door game, lost in thousands. Some people played it, but it never stood out. My apologies to the nostalgists, myself included, but it lacks the "wow factor" the others mentioned have. I will agree with a merge into a list of old BBS games, but this article has no stand-alone value and adds nothing to Wikipedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So something's significance depends on whether people still talk about it? I'm sorry, that doesn't wash. This game *was* notable in the BBS era. It was one of the most popular games played on Atari ST BBSes. This game is an early creation of Jon Radoff. It was one of the early BBS door games to implement inter-BBS play, making it a precursor of massively-multiplayer games. And Space Empire Elite directly inspired the creation of Solar Realms Elite and Barren Realms Elite, both of which people still remember (and play) today, not to mention all the other SRGames and others like Space Dynasty. Kirkman (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkman is correct that WP:Notability is not temporary. The question of whether Space Empire Elite is notable does not relate to the game's current fame. On the other hand, WP:Subjective importance does not constitute notability by Wikipedia standards, either. The WP:General notability guidelines require published sources. If such publications can be found and cited, notability might be established. I tried and failed to find independent publications (beyond the two books by Wolf currently cited), but others might have more luck. Cnilep (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It wasn't notable even back then. If it had been, it would be remembered with the other games that were notable from that time. Being an inspiration for other notable games does not make it notable. Notability simply isn't tranferred like that. This article fails all five points in WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, and WP:NNC. The ability to stand with it's own article simply isn't there. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 3 December 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) 19:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Green, Jr.

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

Non-notable musician. The reference listed only mentions him in a short paragraph, and is a review of a concert with lots of other musicians, and is trivial in terms of notability. Allaboutjazz.com doesn't even mention him, and is possibly from a removed page.

Also tagged with {{notability}} since december 2007. Bjelleklang - talk 20:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He does have coverage on All About Jazz: two different reviewers there covered his 2002 debut album; I've added these to the article. AllyD (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. AllyD (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "In the 1999 Miller Freeman-published biography about his late, great guitarist father, Green discussed in detail the difficulties he encountered playing the instrument while his father was still alive", [65] Ron Wynn, JazzTimes. There is more on Green Jr. at that link. In addition are the two All About Jazz reviews above, a review of Introducing at JazzTimes [66], a review of Jungle Strut [67] and a brief bio [68] at allmusic. Introducing was widely played [69] on jazz stations. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the findings by AllyD and the IP. I think there is enough material from independent sources on the subject and his work to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 09:23, 4 December 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 03:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jitsakul Family

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

The article do not meet WP:GNG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability cannot be ascertained, the article also lack reliable sources. None of the family member have a separate Wikipedia article. There had been a Afd resulting in speedy deletion earlier. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitsakul. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the last AfD. Not sure what has changed but I doubt much has. Also recommend WP:SALT to the closing admin. Two AfDs are enough. §FreeRangeFrog 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pattie Mallette

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

The majority of the sources provided in the article deal only with Mallette's status as the son of Justin Bieber, and much of the coverage of her is only a result of this. Notability is not inherited. I don't think her other claim to notability, writing an autobiography that made it to #17 on the NYT Best Seller list, is not enough to meet the notability criteria for authors. I believe the combination of these two possible sources of notability is not enough to meet the general notability guideline. IgnorantArmies – 08:53, Thursday November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IgnorantArmies – 09:10, Thursday November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. IgnorantArmies – 09:10, Thursday November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Multiple reliable sources cover the subject in depth: The Canadian Press, USA Today, Daily Mail, Seattle Times, National Post, Washington Post, Associated Press. Nom has cited WP:NOTINHERITED however it is an essay, not a notability guideline, and shouldn't be used to over-rule WP:GNG. She also may meet WP:AUTHOR #3, "multiple independent periodical articles" about the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the articles are enough. They only mention her as "Justin Beiber's Mom"...in other words they are articles about her being "Justin Beiber's mom", not about her doing anything on her own. She wrote a book. That does not qualify her for WP:AUTHOR, I have written 3 books, and I'm not qualified. It's great that she is Justin Beiber's mom, but what has she done on her own? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She wrote a book, which is what the sources cover. Being Justin Beiber's mom is irrelevant, WP:NOTINHERITED shouldn't be used in a situation where the person has done something for which there is WP:GNG coverage in multiple reliable sources, or WP:AUTHOR #3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." These sources are all about Pattie Mallette and her book which has received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" in many very reliable national and international sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:INHERITED is admittedly only an essay, its basic message is the reason we don't have articles on Suri Cruise, Malia Obama, or the members of One Direction, despite their extensive coverage in reliable sources. The essay's points are certainly relevant here, in particular: "ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right." If you look at the references in the article—excluding Bieber and Mallette's biographies—Mallette is only mentioned in the context of being Justin Bieber's mother. From the sources you linked above, we have: "Bieber's mother", "Justin Bieber's Mom" (twice), "Justin Bieber's mother", and "Bieber mom" in the articles' headlines, and each of the articles heavily refers to Bieber. The book itself is even subtitled The Story of Justin Bieber's Mom. No articles have been written solely dealing with Mallette and her book without mentioning her son—the reviews and articles are merely an extension of the substantial coverage of Justin Bieber. IgnorantArmies – 08:49, Saturday November 24, 2012 (UTC)

She wrote a book that is covered in multiple reliable sources. WP:INHERITED doesn't exclude real world accomplishments. The spirit of the inheritance essay is for relatives who have done nothing other than be a relative. She has actually done something, she is an actual writer who published a book which has been covered in multiple reliable sources per the essay AUTHOR #3 and guideline GNG. It doesn't matter that the book is about being a relative. The inheritance essay is not designed to trump accomplishments based on what the accomplishment is. Don't confuse being a relative (non-accomplishment) with writing a book (accomplishment). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe we should not delete this article due to the many sources discussed above. --Metsfreak2121 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, this article meets the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The subject additionally meets the subject-specific guidelines for authors, in accordance with criteria #3 and reflected in the sources provided. Certainly, by all means, notability is not inherited. Yet, at the same time, notability cannot be dismissed due to inheritance. The fact that the subject is related to a famous individual does not negate the fact that the subject has achieved an independent accomplishment. Ignore the fact that the subject is the mother of a notable public figure. Now take a look at the article from a neutral point of view. The subject has written a memoir that has received international press and positive reviews on a global scale. The book was additionally listed on the New York Times Bestseller list during the first week of release. To present the belief that the subject has accomplished this feat based merely on the fact that she is related is a personal point of view, lacking neutrality. The subject wrote the bestselling book. The son didn't. (Note that I am the article creator.) Cindy(talk to me) 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be willing to change my opinion of someone could point out a SINGLE source about this person that does not mention that she is Justin Beiber's mom. Surely there must be a single source that will portray her as notable enough to stand on her own merits? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing a bestselling book does count as a legitimate accomplishment which renders her notable in her own right. While it's true that notability is not inherited, that means she's not automatically entitled to an independent article if being a celebrity's mom is the only claim of notability you can make — it does not mean that happening to be a celebrity's mom permanently precludes her from attaining independent notability for a separate achievement, such as writing a book which sells in sufficient quantities to land on one of the most influential and prestigious bestseller lists in the world. It is not necessary, furthermore, for a source to entirely fail to mention her celebrity connection at all to be valid for our purposes — it is only necessary that at least some of our sources discuss her in the context of the book, which they do. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WEAKEST KEEP I have taken the trouble to really research this and take everyone's points into account. I will (begrudgingly) change my opinion. It was a best selling book, and she did write it. But but being somebody's mom and writing a book about it really stretches the limits of inherited notability I think. For the sake of a smooth consensus, and so we don't have to see this turkey again, I withdraw my opinion to delete. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. She will always be Bieb's mom. No amount of success will stop that association from being mentioned whenever she's discussed. The sources about her and her book are sufficient for the GNG. That said, this article's a bit of a mess. It's more a synopsis of her autobiography than an actual biography put together from secondary sources. It relies too much on the book for biog. details, and that's a bit problematic. The Interior (Talk) 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable person, in my opinion because she is a recognisible figure. There are clear sources on the page to support. Sure, I understand the inherit position, but there is more as bearcat noted. Outback the koala (talk) 07:52, 3 December 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 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darby O' Gill and the Little People (band)

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:NM, WP:V, and appears to be in violation of WP:OR. This page has no references or citations, an external link to a Myspace page, and it appears promotional Sal Calyso (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A number of sources have been found, particularly by Tokyogirl79. However, it appears the band only has any sort of notability around the Las Vegas area and WP:NMUSIC suggests you need verifiable national coverage to have an article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having trouble finding any non-local coverage for the band, which is a shame since they sound fun. I'm going to try to dig a little more, but I'm leaning towards delete or userfication if anyone wants to go that route.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 50 or more bands like this in Las Vegas with a few mentions in alt-weekly papers. While I do recognize those alt-weekly papers as reliable sources of information, it does not mean this particular subject is notable. Unfortunately they do not meet the criteria for topical notability. Their website is a primary source and should not be considered as a source for verifiability. Cheers Sal Calyso (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep- I know we can use it to back up the most minor and trivial of details, but I cringe at using them as a source in any situation. I almost always feel that if we have to use a primary source to back up anything other than a basic detail, that's a sign that the article probably isn't notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed,Tokyogirl79. Can we get a "delete" vote for the consensus?Sal Calyso (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy. I did a search and unfortunately there just isn't enough coverage to show that this band is notable per WP:BAND at this point in time. I have no problem if someone wants to userfy this and work on it until the group gets more widespread coverage or fulfills any of the other notability requirements for bands.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some coverage in local papers but falling short of the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard 22:02, 7 December 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 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viscount Bells

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

I'm nominating 6 articles on percussion instruments here.

Spam with real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Purpose of these articles seems to be to link to Emil Richards site and to LA Percussion Rentals store and to call Richards a legend. Those two sites are not independent reliable sources. I found nothing better. Original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as lacking independent sourcing and required by WP:GNG. If sourcing is found and added to the articles, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL Puffery designed to promote richards and his business. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete! Please see revisions! Edited articles to make them more inclusive about the instruments in general. They are a start. Would love for others to be able to add to the articles to give more info about techniques, use in recordings and live performances. This info is reputable, taken from authoritative sources. Percussion is lacking a ton on Wikipedia, so it's highly encouraged to let these articles "ride" for awhile and see how they get contributed to. It would be a shame to delete these articles, because even though the instruments may be a bit "niche" or even obscure, they are an important part of film recording history and percussion knowledge in general. Percussion is about the niche, really. Professionals often don't even know what a lot of these instruments are when they get called for them, especially in scores written in the last 10-20 years. Wikipedia can help change that. Again, the L.A. Percussion Rentals source is reputable and an authority in the area of eclectic percussion. Again, please look at revisions. Open to editing ideas. Please do not delete. Really would be doing a disservice to percussionists and composers alike.Xylosmygame (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether this topic meets the WP:GNG, which is entirely about in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. To save the articles what is needed is not eloquent arguments, but reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Whale Drum article. 2 more ref's. Helps? Xylosmygame (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more links to shops, not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more ref's on Satellite drums also. Xylosmygame (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more links to shops, not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just delete the articles Tomtoms, Mark tree, and chimes then? They all leave a lot to be desired in terms of the types of references you're looking for and much of the articles aren't referenced at all.

Noticed that you're happy to keep the pictures I have exclusive license to, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xylosmygame (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those three articles are all marked as neeing attention, something I completely agree with. I'm not sure which images you're referring to, but if there are any that are being used illegally, feel free to mark them as such and they'll be dealt with. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing something as common as Tom Toms to these niche instruments does not help here. Wikipdeia is not a collection of everything. Subjects of articles need to be notable on their own. These article are not being considered for deletion due to the poor state of the article but due to a what looks like a lack of notability. No reliable sources have been found that say otherwise. Wikipedia articles should be based on what is published in reliable sources, not based on your personal experiences or personal discussions or on your self published website. They definately cannot be based around spam links to your shop.

Regarding your pictures, if you mean pictures you're uploading under the GNU Free Documentation License note the bit on the image pages that says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License," then no you don't have exclusive license. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two more ref's (including a video interview) on Rub rods Xylosmygame (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-read what I wrote above, I used the terms 'independent' and 'in depth.' The first means discounts entries on sales websites. The second requires that the subject matter must be addressed in detail, rather than a passing mention. http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/physicsathome/rod.cfm is a great reference, it contains extending text on the subject, explains how it works, and is financially and intellectually independent. Those are the refs to be aiming for. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new whale drum references fulfill this also. Xylosmygame (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remove the Viscount Bells article. I found a more appropriate article to add it onto, which already has sufficient references. How do I go about doing this? Xylosmygame (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just that one, or the others also? DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just Viscount Bells Xylosmygame (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A set of articles which read like advertisements and which lack independent and reliable sources. (I also suggest the article about the "Richards collection" which promotes a rental business be made about the musician himself). Edison (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Regional League Division 2. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phetchabun F.C.

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

PROD removed but rationale still stands. Concern was "No indication this football club has taken part in a professional competition or otherwise meets WP:GNG." Cloudz 679 15:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 15:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a lot of teams on Wikipedia that, to my knowledge, have never played in a fully professional league. As to WP:GNG, well, I'm not Thai, so I have no idea whether it meets the guideline or not. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:

Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO

Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO

Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? YES - Thai Third Tier (Thai Division 2 League Northern Region) - 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012

Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO - 3,400 results and 7,330 results

Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? YES - Thai League Cup - 2010, 2011 and 2012. In the 2011 competition the club lost 2-1 at home to TTM Phichit F.C., a Thai Premier League side. This clearly impacts on the assessment of notability.

On balance the above match is critical and I leave it to the authors of the article to supply further information. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Regional League Division 2 - a team doesn't have to play in a professional league to be notable, but this article fails GNG. I say redirect to the league it plays in as a probable search term. Giant Snowman 08:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regional League Division 2 appears to have been "re-branded" as Thai Division 2. It is clear that the Phetchabun article in its current state fails WP:GNG as do thousands of others in Wikipedia football. In this instance it would be helpful to advise on the core issue of whether a recent appearance in a national cup against a club playing at the national level (first tier) of the league structure confers notability? League Octopus (League Octopus 11:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep for now: Club has played at a national cup (based on research by Octopus) but if the club continues to not pass GNG then it should be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cloudz 679 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has yet to be well developed and falls squarely into WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. If a subject notionally meets WP:GNG but is not verified in the article, it may well be that the person who created the article has not lived up to their end of WP:BURDEN and we should either encourage them to do so or help by contributing to the article to make it better. See both WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT. League Octopus (League Octopus 12:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
~~Keep~~ - A club doesn't have to have play in a fully pro league to be notable, but this club has played at the second highest tier in Thailand which should be enough. Unless any of you speak Thai, I doubt that you can verify that this topic fails WP:GNG, and deleting an article because the quality is low is not right. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the claimed division according to the article is a third-tier, regional amateur league. The fact you have trouble understanding this is exactly why I believe this type of article should not exist as a stand-alone page on Wikipedia. More importantly, as mentioned by League Octopus above, this article fails WP:GNG, as do thousands of others in Wikipedia football. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. Cloudz 679 08:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm vastly concerned that the home page of the club, given in the article, is actually a forum. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wanted to keep this article because I had the impression that the club had played at the second tier. This was incorrect, so I see no reason to keep this article anymore, and I'm leaning towards delete. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 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 California Technology Agency. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calinfo

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

A topic about a website for the State of California's information technology employees that may fail WP:N. Source searching in GBooks and News archives are yielding information about a different topic, California Agency Libraries and Information Sources, but not this one. There's one source in the article, but topics on Wikipedia are typically to be supported by multiple reliable sources to qualify having a standalone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with California Technology Agency, which its a part of, and which itself is currently only a stub. there isnt a lot of available info about this site, and its really exclusively for CALIT people, not the public, where the CTA is a public site. no prejudice against it becoming an article again if it wins the lottery or is found driving a white Ford Bronco down the freeway:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an earlier PROD:
"I think this page should not be deleted because it talks about (and soon, with the help of users more interested in sharing information than deleting it, will describe more thourouhgly, I hope) a new site for California IT employees just as GCPEDIA describes the wiki for Canadian civil servants. In my opinion, it is worth its place in Wikipedia, along with Data.Gov, Intellipedia, etc. Besides, note that the speedy deletion request came just 7 minutes after the page was created and not 15 minutes as it is advised here (wow, TheDude2006, you are very fast)! --Popol0707 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)" (placed here in the interest of fairness)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the well thought out arguments from Mercurywoodrose. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination per the sources added to the article by User:Lexein. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher on Acid

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

An anarcho-punk band from the UK that may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines or WP:BAND. Google News archives and Books are only yielding passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added substantial book discussion source. Print books and magazines from that era (80s, 90s) will not necessarily show up on Google searches. Google search failures are listed among arguments to avoid for deletion discussions. --Lexein (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Othaniel Yanez

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

Professional Arena Soccer League does not qualify a player as notable. – Michael (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:03, 3 December 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) 19:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoreline (band)

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

A disbanded musical group from Hampshire, England that appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Custom searches such as [70] and [71] are not providing any coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am listed as the creator of this article, and I was notified its nomination, but I actually created shoreline, which got moved to Shoreline (Indie Band), which got moved to Shoreline (band). I created "shoreline" as a redirect to shore, but the article history makes it look like I made "Shoreline (band)" a redirect to "shore". I do not need any help with making myself look crazy, so it would be nice if there were some indication of what actually happened. Even the logs of the "Shoreline (band)" article show no activity whatsoever. I only figured out what happened when I checked the logs for "shoreline" and "Shoreline (Indie Band)", which show the moves. Anyway, the band appears to be non-notable, and the article should be deleted unless notability can be established. Also, what is now a redirect to the article, Shoreline (Indie Band), should be deleted along with it. Finally, it would be nice if the actual creators of such articles were notified of its deletion, not the guy who created a redirect. I am not positive, but I am pretty sure something like this has happened to me before. I am not blaming the nominators, especially given the situation with the article logs. I am just saying it would be an improvement. -- Kjkolb (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kjkolb. You were automatically notified when Twinkle was used to nominate this article for deletion. I've notified editors regarding this deletion nomination, per the redirects you provided above, at User talk:The Canadian Roadgeek/Main and User talk:Jerzy. I've also placed a notification at User talk:Dickforex, because this editor then started the article after your redirect was created (about a different topic), and also at User talk:86.13.68.176, because this editor then changed the article's topical focus in 2007 to be about the band. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: The prominent mention of being disbanded could suggest to some that cessation of an entity is evidence against the notability of its topic, while a verifiable terminal event only adds (however slightly) to the information available about it, and thus arguably to its notability.
--Jerzy•t 16:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending further evidence. In this specific case, at least two acts (each apparently lacking a WP article) and the 4 potential musician bios Matthew Phelps, Matthew Cartwright, Rebecca Halpin, and Thomas Ashworth (or Matt Phelps, Matty Cartwright, Becca Halpin, Becky Halpin, Thom Ashworth, and Tommy Ashworth) have this band as part of their backstory. The content should not be discarded without consideration of keeping part of the content in other articles, or creation of articles that would link to the nominated article.
--Jerzy•t 16:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could have been A7'd. There's no claim of importance at all in the article, and the band doesn't come close to meeting any of the accepted criteria set out in WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO are met. — sparklism ^hey! 13:48, 4 December 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 00:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naser al-Din Shah's slide

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Naser al-Din Shah's slide

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

Article full of citation needed facts indicating clearly that it's mostly original research. There might be some passing mentions of this in some sources but overall it does not appear notable. Only reliable sources are either off-topic or barely related. A lot of "supposedly"'s, "there's no evidence but...", "allegedly"'s etc. Basically the article is crap and likely to stay that way. Volunteer Marek 03:04, 30 November 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 November 30. Snotbot t • c » 03:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful text, if any, to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. Redirect to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. Nothing here constitutes its own article. Fails WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found quite a number of sources in English, and my understanding is that this is a well known item in Iran/Persia, where it is a part of popular culture, being a kind of symbol of "old" Persian sensual court-culture. As I don't speak Persian, sources in Persian are not accessible to me, so I have to accept on good faith that the editor who added them (user:مانفی) is accurately repeating their content. Someone has added a lot of very silly "citation needed" tags to content that is not in dispute (though some are legitimate). Deleting this would serve no purpose, since it provides access in English to an interesting aspect of Persian history that is still commonly referenced in Iran. BTW, it is simply false to say that the article is full of "supposedly"s and "there is no evidence but". There is one "supposed" (in a picture caption) which precisely conforms to the cited statements, and there is also "There is no evidence that they were used by other kings of this dynasty. Nonetheless, this type of slide has come to be known as 'Naser al-Din Shah's slide'[citation needed] or the 'Naserian slide.'[citation needed]." Also, its seems a bit ridiculous to complain that the article uses the very language that scholars themselves do, when saying there is no evidence that other Shahs used it. The names refer to how it is known in Iran. The ridiculous two "citation needed" tags are proof of the absurdity of this kind of manic citation tagging, which IMO is usually a sign that the tagger has some sort of emotional response to the content. In fact the statements are cited to the book footnoted at the end of the paragraph. The last section simply describes events depicted in films. It has been long accepted that descriptions of the plots of films, novels etc do not need citations, as the items themselves are the evidence. Paul B (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, it appears that this has become an issue because of the infantile ravings here [72] to which I have responded on the article talk page. User:مانفی, who created the article, also created a drawing purporting to depict the slide, which has caused a dispute on Commons. This seems to be a confused response to the failure to delete the drawing rather more than the article. Paul B (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found quite a number of sources in English - then why aren't they in the article? The ones that are in the article are barely relevant or make allusions to the subject only in passing. This suggests that this is a prime candidate for deletion, with any useful info merged to Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 November 2012
  - They are - though not all of them, since there is no point in just repeating material sourced to several different texts. Paul B (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge useful text, if any, per Binksternet. If you remove the unsourced assertions and original research, all that is left is a few passing and mutually contradictory references to legends of the Shah's cavorting with concubines. Andreas JN 466 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above editor is the "citation needed" tagger mentioned. There is no original research and there is nothing "contradictory" or legendary about the stories regarding the slide, except in the sense that it has acquired a "legend" in the original meaning of the word - and that's exactly why it is notable. Variations in a story are not the same as contradictions. These assertions are simply false. BTW, Persian Wikipedia has had an article on this subject since 2010. And, of course, even if it were legendary (which it isn't), that would not be a reason to delete, otherwise we'd have to delete Excalibur. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul and oppose merge. This isn't a BLP, it can stand without a few citations. The movie, Once Upon a Time, Cinema, demonstrates that this was notable at least when the movie was written in 1992. Wikipedia has a recentism bias and sources are not likely going to be found online. However, if it was notable in 1992 enough to be written into a movie, then it is notable now.--v/r - T P 19:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something being mentioned in a movie does not make it notable. Wikipedia isn't a list of "...in popular culture" trivia. Oh wait... Volunteer Marek 19:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, being mentioned in a movie goes quite a bit of a ways to making something notable. If a device that was used prior to 1925 was in a movie in 1992, that shows lasting impact (notability). It was (keyword) noted in a film 70 years later.--v/r - T P 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that movies contain a lot of "mentions" of a lot stuff, right? By itself, especially when the info can be accommodated by a merge, that means nothing. Volunteer Marek 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If someone mentioned balloon boy in a movie this year, then think nothing of it. If something that is 70 years old gets mentioned in a movie, it's a sign that that thing has lasting notability. It was noted 70 years later. Our guidelines are what determine an "assumption of notability". Read them, everyone of them uses a version of 'assume'. This thing being in a movie 70 years later is real world notability. We no longer have to assume it's relevance 100 years later. We are at the 100 year later point and it's still noted. That makes it--notable.--v/r - T P 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once Upon a Time, Cinema is an Iranian comedy fantasy film with a surrealist, dream-like plot that is available on YouTube here. The "slide" scene is at time code 31:50. The slide in the film is not actually part of a bath ... if it indeed references Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar's slide, a source saying so would be nice. I couldn't find one. Andreas JN 466 06:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, what does that mean, "it can stand without a few citations"? Does that mean it is now okay if Wikipedia simply makes up historical information, even in the absence of historical sources? Just to give an example of how this article was made, here is what one of the cited sources (Ervand Abrahamian in A History of Modern Iran) says:

In yet another article Dehkhoda managed even to overreach himself. He wrote that since he had stopped his column in Sur-e Esrafil lately, he was about to be sick, because, as the Persian expression has it, "stopping a habit results in sickness." And he went on to add that he would have taken ill, just as Fath'ali Shah would have done if every day he did not lie with his back down beneath the slide in the Negaristan Palace, alluding to the legend that Fath'ali did so every day naked so that his wives would slide down naked over him.

So this is a passing mention of a legend in a completely different context. The article spins this out into the following:

Fat′h-Ali Shah, who had about 1000 concubines, allegedly built several in different parts of Iran. It was said that the Shah lay on his back awaiting each concubine: "Fath'ali did so every day naked so that his wives would slide down naked over him."[2] Referring to the story, the Iranian linguist Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda once joked that if he stopped writing he would feel ill because "as the Persian expression has it 'stopping a habit results in sickness'," adding that "he would have taken ill just as Fath'ali Shah would have done if every day he did not lie with his back down beneath the slide in the Negaristan Palace."[2]

That's more words than the source has. Key assertions like the one that this is a "structure in the form of a playground slide which was used by Persian kings of the Qajar dynasty as a sex device in their harem." or "It became an emblem of the sensuality of the Shah's court" or that there were many such slides that were only destroyed comparatively recently or that this sort of thing is known as a "Naserian slide" are completely unsourced, and limited to Wikipedia. That's not historical scholarship, that's making things up out of whole cloth. Cinema films are not historical sources: we don't write Spartacus based on what Kirk Douglas says and does in the film. What we in fact have are a very small number of passing mentions that this Shah had a pool and a slide, and that he and his concubines used it and had fun with it. That's perfectly safely housed in the article on the Shah in question. Until there is evidence that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, addressing it directly and in detail, it should not have an article here per WP:GNG. So if you want to make a case for Keep, show me the sources, but don't tell me that it's okay to make things up in Wikipedia. Andreas JN 466 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already replied to this point about the use of the word "legend", here, and on the talk page of the article. You can of course reword it if you think you can do so more precisely. There are as you know multiple sources for this story. I have also already replied to the claims you are making about the name given to the slide. It's sourced to the Persian book (and is also supported by the popular cultural usage in film). Maybe the editor who added these claims about other slides and the destruction under Reza Shah was lying about the source, but we have no reason to say so (and indeed it would be entirely consistent with Reza Shah's policies and his view expressed in Mission for my Country, his own book about his life and aims). Your comment about Spartacus is just absurd. No film is being used as a source of factual information (though one of the two films mentioned is actually a BBC documentary!). Paul B (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to get a translation of the source, which does indeed say what user:مانفی claimed it said. Needless to say, there is now overwhelming evidence that the slide was popularly associated with Naser al-Din Shah, as that is how it appears in novels, memoirs and movies. This may be "inaccurate", but that's beside the point, as you should know, per WP:NAME (and has already been discussed here). I have my own thoughts about why this association probably occurred, but at the moment all that can be sourced is the fact that it did. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point. Wikipedia suffers from an internet sources-bias. This thing is 100 years old. It's not going to be found with a google search like Hallie Barry's custody case.--v/r - T P 15:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking nonsense. For one, we have several Victorian sources cited (they tend to be in Google Books, because they're out of copyright), and secondly, are you really going to tell me that the fact that there aren't any substantial sources proves that the thing is notable? Thanks for providing some merriment. Andreas JN 466 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument, Jayen466. If Ervand Abrahamian does not give the item much ink, and a Google book search turns up only passing mention, then we have not satisfied WP:GNG. In my search (which I did not bother to mention before), I found "Six Months in Persia" by Edward Stack in 1882, in which he says: "In the sardaba or underground chambers of the Nigaristan palace in Teheran City, where Fath Ali Shah used to disport himself with his ladies in the heat of the summer day, one can still see, and, if he chooses, slide down, the sursura, or shoot of white marble, rubbed smooth by the white limbs of of that gracious monarch's many wives, as they used to come gliding into his royal arms. It is an inclined plane, down which one shoots with considerable velocity in a sitting posture, to plunge (if not stopped) into a marble tank at the foot. I solemnly slid down it, in riding-boots and spurs, feeling that I but inadequately represented the spirit of the place." Stack's piece is also reviewed and quoted in the Literary World magazine the same year. There's also a brief description in Around the World on a Bicycle published in the mid-1880s by Thomas Stevens (cyclist) who elaborates about the amazing aspects of one of the summer palaces of Fatteh-Ali Shah in the northeast quarter of Tehran. He continues: "...and then we go to see the most novel feature of the garden—Fatteh-Ali Shah's marble slide, or shute. Passing along a sloping, arched vault beneath a roof of massive marble, we find ourselves in a small, subterranean court, through which a stream of pure spring water is flowing along a white marble channel, and where the atmosphere must be refreshingly cool even in the middle of summer. In the centre of the little court is a round tank about four feet deep, also of white marble, which can be filled at pleasure with water, clear as crystal, from the running stream. Leading from an upper chamber, and overlapping the tank, is a smooth-worn marble slide or shute, about twenty feet long and four broad, which is pitched at an angle that makes it imperative upon any one trusting themselves to attempt the descent, to slide helplessly into the tank. Here, on summer afternoons, with the chastened daylight peeping through the stained-glass window in the roof, and carpeting the white marble floor with rainbow hues, with the only entrance to the cool and massive marble court guarded by armed retainers, who while guarding it were conscious of guarding their own precious lives, Fattehali Shah was wont to beguile the hours away by making merry with the bewitching nymphs of his anderoom [harem apartments], transforming them for the nonce into naiads."
Despite the logorrhea of Stevens, I cannot conclude that the slide is notable by itself. The sources discuss other interesting characteristics of the palace including the doors, windows, flooring, etc. We are not going to write articles about each one of these! If someone were to write an article about the Negarestan Palace or Nigarestan Palace of Tehran then the slide would of course be included. Until then, the slide should be mentioned in relation to the shah who built it: Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar. I continue to think the article should be merged and redirected. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a truly terrible argument. We should redlink the palace article from the one about the slide, and hope someone starts building it. There should not be editors in chief here - nobody telling the editor "you can't write about this, until you write all about that." Wnt (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you want to find sources, the thing to look for is "Fath-Ali Shah" slide. This brings up less than a dozen relevant search results in Google Books: [73]. All of these are passing mentions that say that Fat'h Ali Shah had a marble bath or pool with a slide, in the form of an inclined marble plane, and that his women would slide down it and into his arms. None of these sources calls this "Naser al-Din Shah's slide", and none of them calls this piece of sloping floor a "sex device", for crying out loud. The story has a mention in Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar, where it belongs. (Perhaps someone might like to create an article on the no longer extant Nigaristan Palace; the baths could be mentioned there as well. But please note that the palace was not primarily notable for the slide in its baths, and any Wikipedia article should mention some of its other noteworthy features ...) Andreas JN 466 05:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source that refers to it by that name, as I have noted, is in Persian, according to the editor who added it. And that's what the Persian language article is called. It is also how it appears in the films (at the court of Naser al-Din Shah). I presume that it is called that because it became linked to stories about that Shah. Per WP:NAME we use the most common name. BTW, one of the two films is a BBC-produced documentary. As for "sex device", that's just a phrase. It seems quite a reasonable one given the story, but change it to "used for erotic purposes" or some such if you think that's more accurate. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it worth pointing out that the creator of this article had, as his first few edits, category changes by HotCat? I will donate $50 to the wikimedia foundation if there isn't a recent-ish porn movie out that features such a fantasy slide. I will triple it if it wasn't the original author's direct intention to add a link to individuals or companies involved in that film.101.118.18.100 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's difficult to prove a negative. Who's going to watch all those "recentish porn movies" to find out? Seriously, paranoid fantasies are not arguments. The original article dates from 2010 on Persian Wikipedia. This one was originally a translation, created probably to showcase the idiotic drawing which, ironically has been kept (in three versions!) on Commons. When I looked for sources, it seemed to me that it was - just - notable and that it was of interest in the context of Persian popular history. I only wish I could access Persian language sources. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are the edits of user:مانفی, mostly about universities and pharmacutical companies [74]. There is no evidence of any connection whatever to "porn movies", recent or otherwise. I assume that the $150 donation will be very soon received by the foundation. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources linked by Jayen466. Discussed in multiple WP:RS = meets WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't establish the slide's notability just because they mention the slide somewhere. Are we going to have separate articles for the ceiling and floor as well, by this reasoning? And Jayen466's sources definitely do not describe the slide as a sex device, and it seems that the article is here primarily to promote the idea that the slide is a sex device. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article misrepresents the device, this can be dealt with editing, not deletion. If people prefer to merge it, I'm fine with it as well. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Cyclopia and Paul Barlow. Note that problems with poor sourcing do not impact a topic's notability as long as some independent RS's exist. Also note "citation needed" is less persuasive when it is spattered all over an article by the person demanding its deletion, including in places where inline citations may simply have been seen as unnecessary, such as on sentences within a paragraph that is cited at its end, or in the lead paragraph summary, especially when it is troublesome for editors to hunt down the offline sources. I oppose merging the content because the article makes clear that Naser al-Din Shah is only one of the kings associated with it. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't enough to establish notability (the slide just gets a passing mention in them), *and* they are poor *as well* (they don't say what the article claims, which is that it's a sexual device). Those are two separate problems. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources" and the folks !voting delete have only checked online sources. Offline (books, remember those?) take longer to search through because there isn't a Google to search through. We don't delete articles because we haven't found better sources yet. The age of this device and the fact that it's mentioned 200 years later (it was noted in a movie) means it is notable (a derivative of noted. The fact that it was noted means it is capable of being noted...hence we get notable). We don't need guidelines to help us find a "presumption" of notability, we have it established in the real world already. Being mentioned in a movie 200 years later is 100x better than meeting out notability criteria. Our criteria are used to determine if something today will be noted in 100 years. In this case, we know that something 200 years ago was noted today. Thus, guidelines arn't needed to presume notability, we have factual evidence that it already was noted. How does no one else get that? Ya'all need to step out of the written policy and see their intentions and meaning. Why else do you think uses "presumed"? The reason "presumed" is in there is we can't know what will be noted in 100 years, that's why we have guidelines. In this case, we are already at the 100 year later point and this thing was noted. It's notable.--v/r - T P 16:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would dearly like to be able to access sources in Persian to find out how well known this really is in Iran, and how it is normally referred to. As for the complaint that it is not a "sex device", if you don't like that phrase, change it to a better one. Since it was used as part of an sexual 'game' it doesn't seem an inappropriate expression. If having a series of naked women slide down on you isn't sexual, then I don't know what is. Since it's a device to make that happen.... Paul B (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because we haven't found better sources? Of course we do (for some values of "better"). Notability depends on coverage in reliable sources. No sources with coverage means no notability means we delete the article.

Edit: And just being mentioned 100 years later isn't enough. William Shakespeare's hat is still mentioned hundreds of years later. But it wouldn't qualify for an article because it's only mentioned in connection with Shakespeare and although it's mentioned, not many things are said about it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are sources. Quite a few. Paul B (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a difference between "no sources exist" and "no sources are online."--v/r - T P 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have had a lot of sex. Having a great number of women drop on your member from a great height (note sources saying that the slide was so steep as to ensure you'd hit the pool at some velocity) is not likely to be sexually pleasurable, but rather more likely to result in a painfully crushed dick and balls. Women have pelvic bones ... Honestly, man, get a grip. I am sure the Shah and his concubines frolicked. People fuck in swimming pools and jacuzzis. That does not make swimming pools, jacuzzis and their furniture "sex devices". Andreas JN 466 09:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This slide is not a sex device. Instead, it is an amusement device deep within the shah's summer palace, where he can play with the women from his harem. He could catch one of his wives in an embrace at the bottom but not spear her on his member; not without subsequent surgery to repair the royal rod. Binksternet (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't seem to have had a lot of sex." What an utterly infantile remark, which, sadly, seems quite typical. However, I will readily admit that I have not had sex with a string of women sent to me down a slide. I suspect you may not have either. You are evidently still confusing the silly drawing with the article. I've no idea what exactly happened, or whether sex occurred before entering the pool, but it was clearly sexual, and in any case how many time does it have to be repeated before it gets into your head - it doesn't matter whether it is called a "sex device" or something else. That's a trivial phrase, utterly irrelevant to the central issue of notability Change it if you like. Paul B (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we don't do original research on Wikipedia, and why saying "I'm really experienced" isn't a license to do it either. We don't do original research to add to articles and we should not do original research to delete them! Wnt (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do delete original research though, and that's what this unsourced "sex device" nonsense is. I thought our articles were supposed to be based on verifiable sources, rather than an overheated sexual imagination. Andreas JN 466 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, categorizing it as a "sex toy" is over the top, unless you're going to put car seat in that category, and of course the presidential cigar. I checked to make sure. In Wikipedia categorization, a cigar is just a cigar. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. :) Thanks, those are good examples. Andreas JN 466 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fella, you were the one who said "If having a series of naked women slide down on you isn't sexual, then I don't know what is. Since it's a device to make that happen ..." So the confusion between the drawing and the article seems mainly in your head, and the article is still calling the thing a "sex device". It's a swimming pool slide, for God's sake, like you can find in thousands of municipal swimming pools ... Andreas JN 466 17:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article (seemingly phantastic) now has a number of sources. However, I am dubious whehter the subject is really notable by itself. I consider that the right course would be to merge it into Nigarestan Palace, but unfortuantely, we do not have such an article. Is there a Farsi WP? Does that have such an article? If so, can it be transalated? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a Farsi Wiki. My Persian is non-existant, but I think this may be the article: [75]. BTW, several of the "uncited" statements complained of in fact come from the Farsi/Persian Darioush Shahbazi source. Paul B (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we are relying on some dude's website? A dude (Darioush Shahbazi) that is not mentioned in a single book in Google Books? Who doesn't have a single mention in Google Scholar? Look, if this slide is so notable for an article on its own, you should be able to point us to multiple quality reliable sources treating the subject in detail. Handwaving of the "oh, this is the sort of topic where sources would be offline" kind, without naming those sources (author, title, publisher, page number, that sort of thing ...) won't do. If you believe this thing is notable, the onus is on you to prove it, not on us to prove that it isn't. Andreas JN 466 09:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Shahbazi, but I've already said I think it is marginally notable with accessible sources. The other Persian-language source used is the Hassan Azad book. I recently created an article on Franz Josef Heinz. All I could find were "passing mentions" of a few lines in English. Neverheless, I'd be astounded if anyone denied his notability, and we have the advantage that online searching is a lot easier as there are no problems with non-Western script, with poor access to even online sources and multiple name/word spelling transliterations. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, so you mean to tell me that you couldn't find information on a Persian in an English Google Scholar search? How odd.--v/r - T P 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm First of all, Google Scholar contains sources in all sorts of languages. Including Persian, with author names in Roman script. Secondly, any Iranian historian worth his salt would at least have a mention somewhere. As it is, all we know is that some dude somewhere has a website. Andreas JN 466 17:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the AFD started, I have added quite a number of sources. I have no doubt there are many more to be found. I have also reworded some passages in the light of some criticisms. It seems obvious to me that this object was widely commented on by western visitors as a symbol of "Persian" decadence during the reign of Naser al-Din Shah (which is almost certainly why it came to be associated with his name rather than Fat'h-Ali Shah's), and that because of this it became an embarrassment to reformers in Iran: hence the destruction of the palace by Reza Shah. The story retains circulation in Iran and crops up in tales about the court and old Tehran. It's a story that epitomises the change in attitudes from erotic images of "oriental" seraglios to the puritan values of modern Iran (which of course we all prefer so much!). I very very much doubt that the notability of this would even have been questioned if it weren't for the fact that the topic is linked to SEX. The subject seems to produce near-hysterical reactions in some editors. This is most obvious in the bizarre claims added by 101.118.18.100, but also the playground taunts about having sex, the pruriant obsession with what exactly happened at the bottom of the slide etc. Can't we just deal with this as an interesting topic that happens to give an insight into changing attitudes to Iran and within Iran? On a personal note, I followed this up after the initial brouhaha about the drawing because I found that the research was giving me insights into Iranian culture. Surely we have to judge on the basic question: is having the article useful to readers? Surely it is, for the reasons I have given. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has an English name that you guys have made up, and that cannot be found in a single English-language source except Wikipedia and its mirrors and derivatives. You're inventing an encyclopedia keyword that no published author has ever used. Doesn't that worry you? And who exactly is going to look for an English keyword that has never appeared in writing before Wikipedia? Andreas JN 466 17:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh please, who are "you guys"? It has the title that the original uploader gave it and which he stated was the name by which it is commonly known in Iran. He did a Google search in Persian to support this. Again, this wouldn't be controversial were it not that you want to make it so. Of course it would be a great help is Persian speakers could confirm the results of such a search. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Barlow and TParis.--В и к и T 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Merging into Fat′h-Ali Shah Qajar is a bad idea; the slide is already covered by a sentence there, and much more than that would give it undue weight. I feel the {{sex}} template at the bottom isn't especially appropriate though. --Avenue (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Beyond Eagle and Swastika

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

No sources provided to establish notability or to provide secondary material for the article, which mainly consists of the table of contents of the book. This seems to have been a fairly important book, but I was also not able to find any reviews or discussions of it in other works. It has been cited a lot, but without secondary sources WP doesn't consider it notable. BigJim707 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears there aren't many online sources for this older book, but I found a bunch of reviews. For example, there's The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science [76], Political Science Quarterly [77], The Western Political Quarterly [78], The Journal of Politics [79], and The American Historical Review [80]. Almost half a century later, there are also close to 1000 libraries worldwide that own it, based on WorldCat. I don't endorse the article in its current form—the table of contents is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article—but WP:TNT isn't called for. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess your searching methods are better than mine. I would say keep if some information from these reviews could be included in the article. BigJim707 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never underestimate the power of a librarian! I was inclined to agree with you from a Google search. I've added a couple of the reviews, which happened to have been by historians sufficiently notable to have their own articles. I'll try to get information from some of the others in there. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks to BDD's work the notability of the book is now established and the article improved. BigJim707 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no !votes to delete are present. Thanks to the editors below who demonstrated the notability for this topic. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Charm

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

A topic about a band from Nottingham, England that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Customized searches such as [81] and [82] are also not yielding any coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't surprising that a band that was primarily active so long ago (80s) doesn't turn up a lot on a Google search. They received enough press at the time to be considered notable, and had a single in the top 30 of the UK Independent Chart in 1986. This confirms their appearance on The Tube. The only thing wrong with this article is that it doesn't cite sources. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This also confirms a radio session and live show transmitted by the BBC back in the day and repeated on 6 Music. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in their time when they were known as State of Grace they released 3 albums on the RCA sub-label 3rd Stone. One of their singles from this era was reviewed in Billboard: [83]. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michig's sourcing shows that this band meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 08:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig's findings; here are a few more sources: Allmusic [84][85], an entry in Dave Thompson's Alternative Rock book (only partly viewable at Google Books), and an album review in Option magazine (snippet view). Gongshow ^Talk 08:43, 4 December 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 03:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steel structure house

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

Unremarkable subject and topic, violates WP:ORIGINAL for it implies that is it an original research or thought. Unsourced and fails WP:GNG Mediran ^{talk to me!} 01:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator nailed it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic of houses built with steel is notable and I'm sure there's an article on it somewhere. However this one is just an essay on a limited sub-topic, some issues with them in China. Also unsourced and unencyclopedic in style. BigJim707 (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Steel-built housing notable, as BigJim707 said, but the essay-like article would need a great deal of rewriting and alteration to make it suitable for inclusion. It's WP:Original to the extent that the article's exact focus isn't attributed to cited sources. dci | TALK 03:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep WP:SK#2d as "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organic food

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

POV-article hijacked by the WP:MEDRS-guideline, ignoring other sources The Banner _talk 00:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please see WP:POINT, this is a bad-faith AFD nomination and should probably be speedy-closed. Zad68 00:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is long and informative, a lot of people probably look up "Organic food", and I don't see why the article can't simply be heavily edited by other editors to replace everything objectionable.--RM (Be my friend) 00:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't because it is hijacked with the WP:MEDRS guideline in hand. No matter what reliable sources you have relating to health and safety, it will be shot down as soon as it is not a medical source. The whole agricultural view of healthy food and food safety is bluntly ignored, making the article fundamentally flawed, one-sided and POV. The Banner _talk 01:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Definitely a bad faith nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination by someone in a content dispute. Yobol (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (winter wonderland clause) - mostly because AFD is not for clean-up or for NPOV enforcement. "Organic food" obviously passes notability standards and the article is backed by multiple reliable sources. If you think those sources are being given undue weight then have that conversation, by all means. But AFD is not the place for it. Stalwart111 01:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep bad faith nomination. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Wellington

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

The article appears to fail WP:DIRECTOR and is boarding failing of WP:GNG. A search for all of his 'notable' works and himself does not appear to bring up anything notable (If anything related does appear). John F. Lewis (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin Procedural close Wrong venue. Original editor of content has been blocked and userpage content should be deleted through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin and Hobbes: the Animated Cartoon Series

Hoax article created by a sockpuppet. Freshh (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a user page being discussed at AfD? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this should not be discussed here, as these are userpages. In addition, the material is difficult to review as they have been redirected by the nom to the hoaxes policy. This is a bit hurried, and probably not appropriate given the circumstances of the nomination. dci | TALK 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've reverted the edits by Freshh to the userpages' original state. Freshh, despite these being probable hoaxes, it is extremely inappropriate to do that to another person's userpage and would be considered vandalizing. There are better ways to deal with stuff like that, but redirecting it in that manner is not the appropriate way to do it. It's not your userpage. The other thing is that stuff of this nature is very hard to get deleted from someone's userpage. Why? Because it's not the mainspace and you can't really find any of this without really going out of your way to specifically find that one user and go through their edits. If the user has a history of hoax articles, then bring it up at the admin board or through the vandalizing board. In this particular case the user has been blocked and it's highly unlikely that they'll do anything more with the user page. You could potentially try nominating this through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I don't think you'd have much issue, but stuff like this is usually ignored in general because there's little chance of it doing any harm. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Roy Thomas

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

WP:ARTIST - sole claim being put forth is that he is the director of an as-yet-unreleased (probably as-yet-incomplete) short film. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hetsko

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

Contested PROD. Article about a meteorologist that makes no assertion to notability other than Rochester's most accurate forecaster in 2009, 2010, and 2011 by a website called WeatheRate which doesn't seem to be particularly notable either. Going through the guidelines I could not determine if an anchor or other on-the air personality for a TV station is considered notable by association, so this basically falls under WP:GNG and WP:BIO, which are not met in my opinion. §FreeRangeFrog 17:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NY15203 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — NY15203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Based on what guideline or policy? That usually helps. §FreeRangeFrog 23:45, 6 December 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) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Cardon

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

Does not appear to be notable outside of his political campaign, which means he fails WP:POLITICIAN – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Another republican utterly destroyed. Still, he passes WP:POLITICIAN criteria. I will say again, if his campaign was a just a protest or whatever, it was clearly a notable one. I don't really know. But obviously this guy was the Republican choice to crash and burn. A little research will show that 15% is about the expected number when one "sacreficial lamb" is placed up against a giant of the opposite party. This holds true for both parties in entrenched areas. Obviously he's not a paper candidate, therefore he's a legit candidate. The article should stand. If the editor who proposed this deletion would care to propose deletions for some Democrats who fell similarly to Republicans in entrenched areas, I will be happy to support that they be kept as well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread the article, and jumped to an unfair conclusion. I thought this man had won his primary election. To anyone reading this, he did not. After a little deeper digging this became clear. The article itself is written to imply that he won his primary election, which is not at all true. This is what I get for denying myself life-giving coffee. :) Thanx.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I would say that the sources provided in the article are mostly trivial mentions, however since they did come from several reputable newspapers, I thought I'd include the "weak". He didn't win the nomination, so I'm not finding any reason to keep. Go Phightins! 03:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete a failed first-time candidate and no other notability is asserted. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsuccessful candidate in a contest to be a candidate. Trivial mentions, fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 08:26, 2 December 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. No evidence or argument presented for notability j⚛e decker ^talk 02:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zav foundation

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

Unreferenced page about a non-notable subject (only 1780 g-hits for "zav foundation" most of which seem to be social networking) that reads almost like an advert. CSD tags were removed so I am bringing it here. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons stated above. It's not notable enough for an article, and reads exactly like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. --RM (Be my friend) 01:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article must be speedily deleted. The article is neither referenced nor written in an encyclopedic manner. The article do not meet WP:ORG. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No indication of notability and the article qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD A7 already. Holyfield1998 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not adequately notable NGO for an article. Arunram (talk) 07:25, 6 December 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 03:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Art Review

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

Recently created student-run magazine. No coverage in independent third party sources, so notability not established under WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed quite a bit of the article that talked about the people that worked on it. There's really no need to mention every single person and what class year they were, as well as what they graduated with. Unless that editor was overwhelmingly notable, it's just sort of superfluous to the article and unnecessary. I've also removed the long list of each volume, as that's not necessary either unless one volume was overwhelmingly notable as well. I've also noted that the current run of the magazine is not the original run and that it was originally started back in the 60s, something that the previous incarnation of the article was sort of jumbled about. This does make it more likely that sources exist, so I'll see what I can find. Just dropping a note here in case the editors of the page stop in as well as to let any other editors know to look in the page's history for the original version, although all of those sources were predominantly primary or otherwise trivial sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far it's slim pickings, although I do note that the original run was used as a reference in some books: ([86], [87], [88], [89]) It's not a ton of sources, so I'm not sure it would pass as something that is heavily used as a reference.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are for the 1966-70 edition so we have to judge based on that. I don't see much in the way of notability: there is one solid source in the Boston Globe announcing first publication, but after that.. It would be great to find a home in another article for a merge/redirect but no idea where that would be. Possibly Harvard University Press for the old edition, but the new edition appears online only. Possibly create a new article devoted to all Harvard U student publications, there must be many and it would be an interesting/useful to list them with each getting its own section. There would be enough sources for Harvard University student publications. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Knight (musician)

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

Can't find a lot of independent refs on this, so I'm taking it to AfD to hear what others have to say. Appears to be non-notable as a musician, although some of his bands might be notable.

Also see related afds:

Bjelleklang - talk 09:42, 7 November 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) 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to one of his websites, he's been given a BAFTA Award for Best Sound for Theme Park World in 2000 and was given a Best Sound awarded by Develop for Race Driver: Grid in 2008. If these can be verified, I'd give him a weak keep. -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can make of it, he was only part of the team behind the sound of Theme Park World, the Wikipedia article on the game says that "The award was collected onstage by composer James Hannigan, sound designer Richard Joseph and Audio Director, Nick Laviers", and according to the credits listed here, he was only part of the "sound and music staff" along with 7 others so I'm not so sure this is something that can be used for notability purposes. The other game I don't know about. Bjelleklang - talk 02:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure what about this article [ http://www.exotica.org.uk/wiki/Mark_Knight ] is thought to be false, but there is more than enough notability for Mark Knight to have a wiki page if you ask me. ~ V (noob at editing wiki articles)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Delete fails artist guidelines for notability Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:17, 7 December 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) 19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V8X Magazine

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

Very short article with no references and no assertion of notability. Falcadore (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia does claim that anyone can edit it, right? Well, same biz here. We all need to help out in certain places. TollHRT52 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2012 (AEDST)

Reply: Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but not on any topic. I ask you again to consult wikipedia's guidelines on WP:Notability. --Falcadore (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why not first PROD, instead of bringing out the big guns and taking it to AfD just 2 hours and 9 minutes after creation? --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The editor concerned has a long history of single sentence unreferenced articles on non-notable topics that never get expanded. --Falcadore (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since nothing more has been forthcoming from the article creator and nobody else seems tobe able to come up with sources either. The article creator does indeed create lots of stubby unsourced articles... --Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree with Randykitty - this AFD is premature. The magazine might not be notable, and there might not be sources that say so - but, seriously, two hours? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like there's any hope for expansion (establishing notability, finding reliable sources to write from). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:44, 7 December 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 03:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Golden Lioness Award

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

There are very few mentions of this award, and most of those are clearly self-serving. I don't believe it meets our criteria for notability but others may find sources I haven't found. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactif 1

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

None of these video releases appear to have any notability. Release was limited and coverage is nil. Few reliable sources, which—at best—only confirm their existence. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started those articles in 2008 and you want to delete them four years later!? Why now, makes no sense at all. JGab12 (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second International Album

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

As per WP:HAMMER Harsh (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon for this article; it can be recreated when coverage emerges, not to mention an album title or tracklisting (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER). Gongshow ^Talk 20:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I would have suggested a redirect but, (1) "Second International Album" may be occupied for the time being and (2) "Second International Album" is probably not the album's actual name. Google News and Books found nothing, unsurprisingly, but considering she is Greek, any coverage may be Greek and I'm not fluent with Greek. My own search found a forum thread. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MultitrackStudio

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

Unsourced, no indication that it meets notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete This class of software is now pretty common, so mere existence is no proof of innovation or notability. This needs sources if it's to stay. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is substantive news coverage by Synthtopia, Sonic State, and Mix (magazine) [90], in Electronic Musician and in a couple of books [91], and it's cited as a tool by two researchers [92]. The OP should have emended the article, not listed it here. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide links to Reliable Sources, instead of places that such may (or may not) exist, it would be helpful in showing notability. I've changed my opinion before on notability, but just saying to look "in that general direction" isn't really helpful. If the sources exist, provide them. If they are not (or cannot be) provided, then the article should be deleted. Without the actual sources, it's a bit difficult to judge whether or not they qualify as Reliable Sources for establishing notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news link was stepped on; I've fixed it. MultitrackStudio#References now has representative references for our current purpose; they're not yet integrated into the article. The salient points illustrated are (1) the app has been in continuous use for over a decade, (2) hardware makers consider compatibility with the app a selling feature, (3) respected publications recommend the app and keep their readers apprised of its progress, (4) the app is well-known enough to have found nonstandard use as a data recorder by researchers. (Who may also be jammin' with it in the evening; the pubs are silent on this point.) I'd like better references, but these I think are sufficient for WP:N. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, only Tallet et al. used it as a data recorder. Ho and Shih used it to create audio programming. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Looking through the supplied references....

1) One paragraph in a larger article. Not *quite* a trivial mention, but nowhere near being a full article as needed for a RS to show notability.

2) Reads like a press release. Hard to be certain, but it really looks like this one is a press release, or based on one, and thus not independent.

3) Same problem. Appears to either be a press release, or based on one.

4) Nearly trivial side-mention in what again appears to be a write-up of a press release. ("Company tells us that"...)

5&6) Impossible to evaluate, no links. Being external books does not preclude them from being sources, but if I cannot check them, I cannot use them to make a notability judgement.

7) The definition of a totally trivial reference. Topic is mentioned in a list/table.

8) Another book, impossible to evaluate whether or not the reference qualifies as a RS for notability.

So the books might or might not show notability, but none of the links particularly do so. This really needs one or two articles in reliable media that are directly and fully about the topic, and that do not appear to be press releases or written from such. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources here, here, ~~here~~(self published, probably unreliable) and here. Also mentioned in Electronic Musician Volume 21, Issues 7-12 - Page 58 --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:04, 3 December 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 23:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occidental Hotels and Resorts

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

Page was tagged for speedy deletion (G11) twice and declined twice, once by me after being convinced otherwise about it and doing some editing to remove promotional language. The subject still does not appear to pass WP:GNG though. §everal⇒|Times 02:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of the people who tried to speedy it. Once you remove the advertising, the press releases, and the unsourced info, there's nothing left. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 03:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See this Google News search. Perhaps someone with Highbeam access could find additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the person who created this article. I've gone through the process of editing and adding sources and believe the article to be impartial. I'd appreciated it if the tags be removed. After having compared and contrasted the page I created and other hotels' Wikipedia pages, I don't see a difference content-wise nor see the content I created as commercial. Please advise.--Kris.sordo (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I move that the article for deletion tag be removed from this entry, as no one has given just cause for its removal, and this issue has been outstanding for several weeks.--Kris.sordo (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave just cause for its deletion - I did not think that it was sufficiently notable to pass the general notability guideline. The page does look better now but I believe there are still notability issues. If we have no consensus then that's just the way it goes, but please don't interpret that result as indicating that deletion is not an option. §everal⇒|Times 16:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd appreciate your input on how I can further improve it so we can move to removing the tag. Thanks.--Kris.sordo (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea. I looked through the first five pages of the Google News results; I don't think I would say there's significant coverage, at least not in English. The best article I found was this. Eh. I'd wager towards delete but that's mostly because I feel that Wikipedia doesn't need to write about companies just for existing and operating. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:32, 7 December 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 03:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrado Malavasi

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

Non-notable composer. Only claim of notability is winning the Fernando Rielo Sacred Music Competition (see here), although this win cannot be confirmed by sources, nor is it clear that this win is all that significant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley Homebrew Mobile Phone Club

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. cannot find significant indepth coverage just small mentions. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this club isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per every element of WP:ORG. One article in the local paper, and a complete listing of all such clubs, makes this very ordinary. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 1 December 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) 19:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Download, Read & Feel

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

Non-notable unreferenced software Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, not correctly formatted/ is a howto article, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Googled for sources. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:08, 7 December 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 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Murad

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

I can't find any online references for this person who in the article is asserted as "considered as one of the best writer of Pakistan and is famous for writing issue-based films wrapped in entertainment". As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you searched in the local script? A well-known author in Pakistan may very well have had no coverage in English. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Have you searched in the local script?" No, I have not not searched in the local script. I can read no Urdu or any other languages this article may have references in other than English.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a Pollywood or Lollywood director/writer. English sources are of course minimal but he exists.[93] Could not find any of the dozen films listed in the lead section as winners of a National Film Awards (Bollywood) or Nigar Awards (Lollywood). I did find this list on IMDB of the Top-50 most popular Pashto films, which includes Yarana which he claims to have been involved in some capacity, but IMDB is unreliable and there is no source to verify he worked on the film. Most sources if they exist will be in Pashto, Urdu and Punjabi and no idea how to begin since it's outside Google Translate. There is lots of evidence he exists (see the opening credits of this film) but sourcing is a problem, as are the guidelines for WP:NFILMS which in some ways not very applicable to this situation, thus WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. --Shorthate (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried searching for reliable sources, but didn't find anything meeting wiki's criterion of reliable source. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:17, 4 December 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) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Gap 2: The Prequel

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

Album has received no notable coverage. AllMusic article is empty. No charting at Billboard. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that meets our notability criteria. My usual underground hip-hop sources (many of which aren't reliable anyway) even draw a blank. — sparklism ^hey! 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to WP:NALBUMS. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veganomics

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches turned up very little (apart from a Vegan magazine of the same name). Looks like a free mixtape with no coverage to establish notability. — sparklism ^hey! 08:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to WP:NALBUMS. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Türkan Şoray'dan 'gerçek' Osmanlı tokadı!". haberturk.

[2] "Leyla Göksun and Kutsi the male lead of Doktorlar making an appearance in a morning TV show in a Turkish television". Show TV.

[3] "Incredible stories of young actresses". milliyet.com.tr.

[4] . hurriyet http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/magazin/televizyon/16988366.asp. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] "Leyla Goksun fan page".

[6] "Turkish wikipedia article "Doktorlar"".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]