Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 13

< 12 October	14 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dzogchen Khenpo Choga Rinpoche

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

Contested PROD. The only sources in the article are not independent of the subject, and I could not find significant coverage of the subject at reliable independent sources. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find sufficient coverage in sources independent of the subject. Jbtscott (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rex City, Faisalabad

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

No evidence of notability. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone can find a RS that I was unable to. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the evidence on the web points to this being a medium sized shop rather than being an actual market or an equivalent of Tottenham Court Road. (AbrahamCat (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BatBox. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kittin Is High

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

Non-charting single fails WP:NSONGS. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is the lead single from Miss Kittin's charting album BatBox and can have enough information to go beyond stub class. More importantly, many singles have pages on wikipedia with little information or have not charted such as the electro-pop songs Hot Chick (Uffie song) and Difficult (song) by Uffie, I Feel Cream (song) by Peaches, Sow into You by Róisín Murphy, My Man (Yoko Ono song) and Never Say Goodbye (Yoko Ono song) by Yoko Ono. What signifies this song for deletion over these other songs? Burnberrytree (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Show how the album passes any of the criteria at WP:NSONGS, using reliable sources to back up your claims. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The album BatBox charted in France, Belgium (both Wallonia and Flanders for they have sperate charts) [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnberrytree (talk • contribs)

This article not about the album BatBox, it is about the song Kittin Is High. Here is the relevant passage from WP:NSONGS that I'm talking about: Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Has this song (not the album that it's on) been ranked on significant music charts (i.e. a singles chart), or has it won a significant award or honor? SnottyWong ^converse 21:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about the album, sorry. In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Kittin Is High is from a notable artist Miss Kittin, who has had chart success with several albums and singles, and it is an official release. The article is more than a track listing for the single. Furthermore, the music video and album cover for its vinyl single [2] were designed by the notable creater of Emily the Strange, Rob Reger. Futhermore, it was produced by a notable producer Pascal Gabriel. And the description you provided about a song's notability based on charts and awards says "probably notable," implying that a song does not have to meet this criteria to have a wikipedia page. Burnberrytree (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're right. My comments above did mistakenly ask you to show how the album passes notability criteria, not the song. My apologies. However, the quote you've provided above states that if a musician or ensemble is notable, then their albums are usually notable. However, not every individual song by a notable artist is notable enough for its own standalone article. Generally, if the song charted on a singles chart, that is usually a free ride to notability. SnottyWong ^speak 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BatBox. It didn't chart, receive awards etc so isn't suitable for a standalone article, but it's a plausible search term and WP:NSONGS allows for a redirect to the parent album. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BatBox.Merge to BatBox. A quick search confirms the single didn't chart, and the review linked is for the album, not the single. Any info specific to the single can be discussed in the BatBox article; in fact, that article could use some additional prose as it's pretty bare now. 28bytes (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to redirect to help build consensus. 28bytes (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BatBox Since BatBox is still a very short article it makes little sense to have an article on a single, especially if it didn't chart on its own. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Valid points are made all around, (although there is no policy or guideline I am aware of that says all European football club presidents are automatically notable) redirecting seems like a good compromise solution. If better/more sourcing can be located for specific individuals they can always be split back off into their own articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Chrisafidis

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

Article that fails WP:GNG, and as far as I'm aware, being president of a club does not make a person inherently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that European football club presidents are notable. The featured List of FC Barcelona presidents hints at this (although I'm well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and I'm sure with a bit of research, these articles can be improved.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 October 2010
Incubate the lot of them for now. In their present condition, these add almost nothing to the encyclopedia and would be best off deleted. But as GS says above me, the people may well be notable. So let's give them a chance to be improved without compromising on quality. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am inclined to think that chairmen of a club like AEK would be inherently notable and that sufficient sources are probably out there (especially for the more recent ones). Anyone read Greek? Eldumpo (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure many of these people may be notable in the Greek business community, but in the wider world at large, they probably aren't especially noteworthy. The AEK Athens F.C. page does a fine job of listing them, and unless they have achieved other notable feats I can't see much worth in their remaining. Some of them, like poor old Ilias Georgopoulos, are sitting ducks for vandals, because their pages are probably unvisited for a long period.(AbrahamCat (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Listing former presidents is fair enough (whether it be on the club page or a seperate article, but there's no indication that these people are notable enough to warrant individual articles. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to AEK Athens F.C.. They are plausible search terms and redirects are cheap. This would also make it easy enough for someone to pull out the article and expand it should verifiable information be found. Location (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Agree with Location. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be general agreement that the position is notable, and if the present position is, so it was in the past also. The question is whether its worth having articles with so little information. I see no harm in starting with a mere list, & if the articles didn't exist, I wouldn't make them. But if the list has already been expanded into articles, then regardless of the possibly small extent of content in these articles, I cannot see the benefit of reducing them back to a list. It makes much more sense to devote the effort to expanding articles or writing missing ones. Tinkering with arrangement is unproductive as compared with writing. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all The referencing is currently extremely weak for all of the articles so I don't see how we could keep them in their current condition. By redirecting (without deleting) we improve navigation and make it easy to retrieve the article history for someone who wants to restart an article with new sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the nominator, I also agree with redirecting the articles for the reason listed above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Edelman

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

Only production credit is a redlinked show on a redlinked network. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. Also, PROD was deleted by the creator, so yeah... Purple backpack89 05:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, speedy close, trout slap the nominator for acute and chronic noncompliance with WP:BEFORE. HBO is not a "redlinked network", although HBO Sports is a production company that may have no independent notability; and the progam was "redlinked" only because the article author made an easily-fixed error in the title. Even more important, the article subject is rather rather well-known, and quite notable, for other projects, including the widely reviewed [3] and multiple Emmy-winning [4] Brooklyn Dodgers: Ghosts of Flatbush. Experienced editors should be improving the work of well-meaning inexperienced ones, not mindlessly and inappropriately tagging their work for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

personal abuse from an i.p. address removed DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just have a grudge and a half against me don't you? I looked and didn't see anything that said "Emmy". Clearly my google-fu is abysmal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per meeting WP:ANYBIO through award wins. The redlink was certainly easy enough to fix, and his winning two Emmy Awards is easy enough to source... as it took maybe 18 secinds to verify.[5] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per Schmidt.4meter4 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per criterion A7, as an article about a company that does not indicate why it is notable or significant. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Home Mobility

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

Spam. db deleted (twice) by a new user who appears to have created an account solely for this purpose. (Do I smell a sock?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Quickly" Delete Yes, I already know that recreation of deleted materials dbs are only for things that were deleted after AfD discussions, but that doesn't mean that I agree that it is a good idea. Also, fails WP:N, has no sources, ect. Sven Manguard _Talk 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, db-corp, obvious sock removed the tag. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Airplaneman (talk · contribs); rationale was "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Sala

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

delete - suggest speedy - Not wiki notable, as yet a reserve team player. Previous AFD 3 months, no noteworthy change since then Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4 - This was put up for nomination in July. My thoughts in the original AfD still stand. (I haven't tagged it as such, as I don't have access to the previous copy.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hao's followers

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

Large unwikified article with no references that is a content fork from Shaman King. I ran some of these things through Google searches and got a bunch of user-generated fan stuff, but nothing I could use in sources.

Other problems include the lack of focus in the article (a plot summary, a character listing, and lots of WP:OR), excessive use of in-world language, and of course, the aforementioned original research. Sven Manguard _Talk 21:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page was only unwikified because of edits 30 minutes before you started this AFD. I reverted to the previous version (except for leaving the AFD tag in place). Calathan (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I transwikied this over to the manga wiki [6]. People who like to edit and read this sort of information can find it over at the wikia instead of the Wikipedia. Dream Focus 08:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. The page has been unsourced since May 2006, time enough to find some references.--Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The intro describes these as almost unnoticeable characters, what could be less notable than background characters that contribute almost nothing to the story? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant comments from multiple editors assert and have shown there is enough reliable secondary source coverage to retain, and improve, this article. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

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

No evidence this episode has independent notability. I don't see any indication it was nominated for or received any awards, with no substantive review or commentary from third-party sources. Already appropriately covered at list of episodes --EEMIV (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - AFD is not cleanup. The article needs substantial cleanup. This is not a reason to delete. Taking the article to AFD because of the disagreement over whether or not it should be merged is improper. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Merging all Star Trek article into single page lists with definitions is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"AFD is not cleanup", sorry, but nobody suggested the article needed to be cleaned up. The article is lacking notability, plain and simple. A lot of these episodes are the same, no more notability in some of them other than a hairdressing award (no, really). WikiuserNI (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all episode articles - Indeed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia with a mechanism for determining which subjects require an entire article devoted t*o them. It appears that all of the first season episodes have their own articles at this point (and they have existed for quite awhile), so while they probably should all be merged back to the list of episodes and/or to the Season 1 article, it's unlikely that the status quo is going to overturned. None of these individual episodes appear to pass the notability threshold. The only coverage I can find about them (most of it is like this) proves that they exist, but not that they are notable. SnottyWong ^babble 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of episodes Pretty clearly fails to meet notability requirements on its own. Refs are trivial, limitted to things like reviews and no indication this episode has made a notable impact on its own. -- ۩ Mask 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of episodes, nothing but plot summary, no indication that the episode is notable or has any substantive coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of episodes per reasons mentioned by several people above. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't feel like typing a huge history of the "episode wars", but the wars are useless. Episode articles are the way popular shows have been organized on wikipedia for many years now. Let's write articles, improve articles, and source some BLPs instead. Proposing to "merge all episode articles" is a distraction to the project.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wanted to alert closing admin to this discussion, Talk:List_of_Star_Trek:_Enterprise_episodes#Merger_proposal, where a discussion about merging episodes of this series was proposed by WikiuserNI, and the additional discussion there is relevant to this AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a combination article about the episodes, preserving sufficient content. Best compromise solution. So clearly the best that I cannot figure out why we keep arguing about articles like these.

Note: The article under discussion here has been listed in a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#More_input_for_merger.----Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss merger possibilities outside the AfD process, since there's currently a merge discussion underway. Fact is, just about any episode of any major network, cable, or syndicated show has reviews out there sufficient to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This view has been routinely rejected in many, many AfDs. But you knew that. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for myself, I know nothing of the sort. Its a longstanding battleground with inconsistent outcomes, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blackout!_(Ugly_Betty) (Feb 2010) couldn't even garner one delete vote.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Following up to myself, I did manage to find one additional RS for the article, but it's not the primary focus. I don't see a merge consensus as inappropriate, as I've been unable to find more sources than those already present. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the episode articles for this series Millions of people watch these episodes, that makes them notable, not the opinion of whatever random credit bothered to review them. Having the entire Wikipedia held hostage by the whims of a small number of reviewers, is ridiculous. Nothing gained by deleting it, since if you don't like this sort of article you won't find it unless you are just looking for something to complain about and destroy. Don't care what the suggested guidelines say. Wikipedia is not rules, and if a rule interferes with something that would improve Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR Dream Focus 05:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite unhelpful, the coverage of the series this episode belongs to is already being improved, holding a list of episode summaries on separate articles merely reduces the effectiveness of Wikipedia, by making it harder to find information quickly. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. If someone searched for the episode, they'd want to find the episode's article. If they wanted to find the series itself, they'd find it, and likewise to a season list. Dream Focus 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a lot of sense. By having a season page, we can keep the details on that season, season themes and the episode summaries together. If you search, you'll find that too. What's the point in hold separate, expanded plot summaries? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's comments are extremely unhelpful when it comes to these sorts of discussion, as they rest on "i like it, so keep" and flawed IAR rationales rather than actual editorial policy and guideline, it will count for little when this discussion closes. The Wikipedia will be improved by removing endless fan content. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc's comments are also extremely unhelpful when it comes to these sorts of discusions, as they rest on "i don't like it, so delete" and flawed rationales that the project actually improves by removing endless fan content, when more such content is created every day than could be deleted in a year. Its a volunteer project, and that's reality.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I only discussed aspects of notability and reliable sourcing. Yep, that surely just is an "idontlikeit" rationale for me "delete", eh?

Facepalm Quit while yer behind, Milowent. Your response was ~~pathetic~~ less-than-edifying. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always admire the wit of your uncivil comments.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say that I admire your intentional misrepresentation of my argument, but I cannot. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope your extremely unhelpful comments count for little when this discussion closes. You can not improve Wikipedia by removing content some people actually come here to read. And all policies have been met, and the guidelines only suggestions. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a great policy to follow. We're here to maintain Wikipedia, not eliminate it. Episode articles like this have been around since the beginning of Wikipedia, and hopefully will remain. Dream Focus 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IAR can't be invoked so you can simply get your Rescue Squadron-preferred ideology to carry the day at an AfD, sorry. If the subject matter is notable, prove it. If not, then it it is eligible for deletion. For fan repositories, we can point users to the memory alpha, not an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by consensus, which is the opinions of those around at the time to comment, as well as the opinions of the closing administrator. All required policies have been met. To prove its notable, I'd point out that millions of people watched it, that all the proof I'd need. If millions of people thought it notable enough to watch, it should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. Dream Focus 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the old "notability is determined by consensus" vs. "XfD is not a vote" debate, eh? On some days you do win that debate...I've seen more that one 10keep-1delete discussion close as a keep despite the 10 arguments being slack-jawed absurdities. But when the numbers are closer, as this one is, then not-a-vote tends to rule the day, as there is more leeway to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments rather than be forced into bean-counting. As to the "millions of people watch it" argument, do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous that is? Millions of people watched Wii Fit Girl on youtube, yet she only gets a redirect. Millions of people know who Brian Peppers is, yet he remains a redlink. Sheep don't vote, as they say. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please discuss only the afd, and try not to discuss the voters, or whether they are sheep, and try not to state which way the afd is going to go presumptively? it would help everyone. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On YouTube, can you trust the count? Some people can run bots that automatically change their IP addresses, and keep reloading the page, constantly, to get the number of views up. So you couldn't go by that. Dream Focus 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the card you're going to play then one could point out that Nielsen ratings are similarly deceptive, in that it isn't a literal headcount of every household in the country, but merely a statistical sampling. But either way, the "millions" argument falls flat per WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I had created a season page for these articles after having proposed a merge for them originally. I did of course check for a clean up when doing so, there is precious little. Notability seems far from assured, the article exists pretty much as a plot summary and an extended one at that. Delete as the season page already holds as much information in a more concise manner. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability to be found for a routine episode. I can justify episode articles for pilots, finales, and others that can be demonstrated to be notable beyond fanboy sites (e.g. "there are four lights!, but this fails that. There's no need to keep this as a redirect, as there's nothing to retain from an article of simple plot summary (Act I, Act II? Jesus, this isn't Shakespeare). Just update the redirect at Fight or Flight to point to the episode list, if that is permissible per disambig guidelines. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how is this vote different from a merge in its end result? Aisha9152 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep this afd looks like it was created because of the merge discussion[7] here . also i think precedent and there is a wiki project working on improving these episodes helps. Aisha9152 (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's not a bad faith assumption (regarding the reason for AfD), perhaps you might address the article itself instead? What precedent do you refer to? I see plenty of unnotable episode articles being merged due to a lack of notability, I feel this one can be easily deleted. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Best to retain all the episode articles as seperate entries per DreamFocus. Also per Aisha9152 and per the Colonel's well-grounded earlier speedy close of this debate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-admin keep and a plea to have as many episode articles as possible aren't great reasons to keep. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added one source, and books such as this appear to provide some potential material as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Name-dropped in the beginning of a chapter of a fan guide? Yea. And by "yea" I mean "no". Tarc (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do take your point about it being a fan guide (Star Trek 101 is published by Simon & Schuster, which is owned by the company that also owns the TV network), but for the record I was not referring to the name-dropping on p. 252, I was referring to the details of the episode from p. 265. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Handle Editorialy It's either a Keep or a merge which is another type of keep. Delete is not a viable option, so handle it on the talk pages or if that fails some form of content dispute resolution.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is deletion not viable? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's indisputable that it's either notable on its own, or notable as part of a larger article or list. It's either one or the other. If it's the second it gets turned into a redirect and deletion would be both unnecessary and undesirable. (i.e. attribution of any material that ends up merged.)--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, I kinda dispute it. a) There's already a one-liner description in the episode list, so there is nothing to attribute or reuse from the current article. b) We don't need to retain "Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)" for redirect/search purposes; a reader searching via title will hit the disambig page for the term, and from there can be pointed to the episode guide. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, you certainly have the right to dispute it. I guess if we want to be clearly technical it should read "In my opinion there's no valid dispute that..."--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I take that back. You're not disputing the fact that I called indisputable. Your own words There's already a one-liner description in the episode list coincide with mine notable as part of a larger article or list. You're disputing the second part deletion would be both unnecessary and undesirable which although I feel is 100% accurate was not part of the indisputable statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Star Trek: Enterprise (Season 1). No sources showing notability. Can be later restored when/if sources are found (no, the mention in the fan guide doesn't make it notable). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete but seeing that the only sourced third party content is that some critic said the episode "is one of the four best of the season", (if that doesnt fall under the category of "trivial passing coverage" I am not sure what does) there isnt actually much to merge. Fails WP:N Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those suggesting merge - What content is appropriate to merge? Is there a contention that the coverage at the List of episodes is insufficient? --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer in line with my original answer. This is an editorial decision. Keeping the history beneath a redirect would allow editors to discuss and merge based on consensus, maintaining attribution.

A question in return, what is the downside in a merge/redirect even if after discussion it does turn out that no content ends up transfered?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I am not outright opposed to the current page being retained as a redirect, just IMO it is not necessary, in that nothing needs to be taken from it to add to the episode guide. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any notable information which can be sourced can be merged. SnottyWong ^prattle 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define "notable" in this context? Hobit (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case you wouldnt need to define "notable" any more strictly than "from a reliable source" because all of the sourced content in the current article could easily be transferred into a season summary article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find that there is no difficulty adding sources and otherwise improving the article. The content should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. The nominator was content to work upon the article three years ago and there seems to be no good reason for this action now. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coronel, on the citations that the article has after your editions. Discarding the fan guides, I see a) an article about how fans see the new series [8] and b) a book about "extensive biographical and career information on more than 11,000 professionals currently working in the entertainment industry (...)"[9]. The fan guides seem to contain only plot summaries. I doubt that these sources can be used to expand the article. Your argument is correct but it only works if there are good sources to work with. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are quite satisfactory. Respectable encyclopedia such as Britannica and works of literary analysis routinely provide plot summaries which are expected content. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss these as sources. If other independent authors consider this material to be the significant aspect of this topic then we must respect their judgement. To do otherwise would be contrary to core policy and other policies besides. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake, please stop throwing wiki-acronyms in people's faces that do not have the slightest connection (censor? really?) to what we're talking about. Those who wish to see the project not be a host for non-notable fancruft are not censoring other users. Your premise...hell, the entire ARS premise...is bordering on the completely farcical. To even begin to consider it would effectively negate the entire XfD structure. 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To all those who bet it would take more than 12 hours before Tarc started slandering the Article Rescue Squadron, you may now pay up.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/shrug Well, it's kinda like the Wikipedia version of the Tea Party at this point; nothing can be thrown at it/you is not deflected by a novel re-interpretation or an over-simplification of editorial policies/guidelines. "We have to keep it because millions like it", "we have to keep it to preserve the hard work of other editors", "no, we have to keep it because I found mention of it in a google book search". I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, how does one defend the simple concept of notability in the face of such blatant wiki-fundamentalism? This is like Crossfire now, without the bow-ties. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's double, blokes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you blame him? The ARS is not difficult to "slander". SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 20:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of joining in on the attacks we encourage people to either stay on the appropriate topic or keep our shots to ourselves.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snotty can't stand being left out of any drama that does not involve actually improving wikipedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did something weird happen here [10] Aisha9152 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove a snarky comment of mine rather than strike, since no one had replied to it anyways, thankfully. Would you prefer it to return? Tarc (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems sneaky since you left it up long enough for me to read it and it did not seem to warrant a response. i dont care. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with a standardly published fan guide per se being used to indicate "significant coverage by third party sources". However a fanguide that is merely listing the episodes existance or castlist is not "significant coverage". There would need to be actual coverage / analysis about the episode.Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about these [11], [12], they come up in Google news results, but I wasn't sure.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is [13] "By Lisa" whose bio page is dead - so no on that one. And the FAQ for the second one [14] states that it is a "news and rumors entertainment site". Not generally the qualifications one would like to see for a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them to the article, but put them on the talk page for discussion, because I wasn't sure about them. Google has some threshold for listing sites under news searches, but I don't know how that works.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow. → ROUX ₪ 22:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, my Trekkie credentials are downgraded unless I'm involved in at least one such online debate about Star Trek a year... WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm willing to give any Star Trek episode the benefit of the doubt as they've all been pretty extensively covered in published sources. I'm sure both the Star Trek Magazine and Starlog covered this episode, and as far as book sources go we have Star Trek 101 (ISBN 0743497236) and probably others. I want to make it extremely clear that while I am voting to Keep here I am not endorsing Warden's speedy-keep close and if that happens again then a block is in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those specific sources you mention have already been presented. Some people (like me) don't find them to be enough. Is there any new source apart from those? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show where they've been presented? I'm not finding them in this discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)#References I guess. pablo 19:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't seem to list any of the magazines in question. I think Enric's comment is mistaken, but if there is such a discussion I'd like to see it. Hobit (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of episodes, television episodes usually aren't notable in their own right. Secret ^account 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Any source which covers everything can't create notability. It doesn't show any special focus on the subject in question. So books which create an exhaustive list of things and mention the subject are out. Magazines that review every star trek episode ever, including this, are out. So far nothing else has really been shown for coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

which source are you referring to? Aisha9152 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, a while back I took the same position as the one you have here and also started a thread about it on one of the policy/guideline pages. Unfortunately, I can't find the thread at present but I recall that the idea did not gain traction. Aisha9152, the thinking is if someone creates a reference work on Star Trek that they would have a section, possibly as little as a paragraph, but still a section, about every single episode. The reference work would qualify as detailed coverage of the entire series but should its coverage of a particular episode be evidence that the episode received "independent coverage?" Two of the Fight or Flight article's references, Star Trek 101 and El universo de Star Trek appear to be reference works that cover all the episodes. Those two happen to be the only WP:RS in the reference list that cover this episode in detail. Is every single ST episode "notable" as they were covered in these books? I thought "no" but attempts to sell the idea did not gain traction and so I decided to go with what the consensus was which was that inclusion in a reference work could be used as evidence of notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage should be significant and not just consist of confirmation that the episode exists and has a plot. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but also see that WP:N defines "significant" as somewhere over one sentence and 360 pages. For a while I was using "600 words" which is two paperback pages and nearly always exceeded by magazine articles as a personal metric but kept running into uphill battles when I used that metric in AFD discussions. In this case, we are talking about plot summaries which provide sufficient detail that someone can write a Wikipedia article about the plot. Those likely qualify as "significant." --Marc Kupper|talk 16:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - in support of all the pro merge comments on this AfD, in particlualr any that suggest it could be reinstated as a stand-alone article if develops sufficiently in volume and notability according to policy. Note: Incivility and pure hard-nosed deletionism is probably not likely to influence the closing admin's decision.--Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, Keep or merge - They're are plenty of souces on all aspects of ST, but it's hard to make a GA (or hundreds of GAs in this case), so put it off till tomorrow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion by those in favour of keeping standalone episode articles, but next to no work done on improving them, save for some desperate citation of the most basic of details (here's a quick hint for those editors, the episode and its credits take care of the plot and crew/cast citations). WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references list has been improved since the AFD nomination and are evidence of in-depth coverage from multiple reliable/independent sources that WP:N looks for. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly have not. All that has been done is that the existence of the episode (not in doubt), its plot and the credits for the actors and writers have been cited. A mild review has been added. How does that count as significant coverage? WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant," or rather "non-trivial," is defined in WP:N. What I saw was that there is non-trivial coverage of the Fight or Flight episode by multiple sources that are each independent of the subject. They appear to be reliable sources and are verifiable. Though it's not a WP:N point, further evidence of notability is that Star Trek has a considerable fan base that's independent of the subject.

I believe the main point contention is if non-trivial coverage in a comprehensive work qualifies as treatment of a subject in a way that makes it notable. There are books that attempt to cover everything known about the Star Trek series. I assume you can get DVD sets of all the episodes. This TV episode in itself would not is be notable other than it has gotten coverage due to the fact that it's part of a series that receive significant coverage. Both WP:N and WP:NOTFILM are silent on this. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect per Kudpung. The episode still doesn't make any claims why it should continue to exist outside of a LoE/season article, and I prefer an AfD with balanced views to a stalled merge proposal that won't go anywhere for over a year. Of course the article can be recreated anytime it can prove the episode's notability with sufficient non-trivial sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cut down the plot to a much more acceptable level. I don't really have an opinion on seperate articles more than WP:ILIKEIT, but there's no rush to improve the article, it will take time as there are a lot ST articles to bring up to spec, and a lot of published sources on ST to do it with. -- WORM MЯOW 12:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, if we accept that we should ignore all rules, allow for as many articles as possible as this isn't a paper encyclopedia and take our time, why delete anything at all? You'd think though, that online, on a Star Trek article, there would be swathes of fans like me adding everything we can. Given that in all this time, we've only got an article that seems to mimic (poorly) a Memory Alpha entry, it says much about the article. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand Memory Alpha is not part of Wikipedia. Just because Memory Alpha has a entry doesn't mean we get to delete Wikipedia's entry and redirect to Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha writes articles in a in-universe style, it is very inappropriate to redirect to that site. Which is what we are doing by using a list with a notice that says "for more information please visit Memory Alpha". We don't keep as many articles as possible, many topics do fail notability. Star Trek episodes are notable, they are watched by millions of people. There are thousands of reviews. The statement episodes only receive notability if a few famous people review it is false. A search with Google of "Star Trek episode reviews -wikipedia -youtube" you get over 3 million results, many of which are relevant. Many of the reviews could not be considered reliable, but the sheer number of reviews prove notability. There was a similar debate on Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition over "every software release is not notable". It was kept because of the sheer number of reviews and per WP:SS. Episode information is too large to be included in a single list, per WP:SS it should have it's own article. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we don't want episode information to this extent. If all that can be said about this episode is a summary of the plot, then there is really no call for it to be a standalone article. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the TV Guide. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Star Trek episodes are notable, they are watched by millions of people." The episodes are watched by millions of people = True. That something is watched by millions of people = it meets wikipedia's notability requirement for a stand alone article = False. False falsefalsefalsefalsefalse. No matter how many times inclusionists attempt to state it as fact, it is not. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This episode is a stub. It needs substantial improvement. It is currently no where near the quality of Star Trek: First Contact. However, this episode does have significant coverage. AFD is not cleanup, which is what it is currently being used as. If we were to add sources, expanded the production section, and the reception there would likely be very few delete votes. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am not a inclusionist. I am a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said the same thing in the very first comment in this AfD re: clean-up, but that is not being suggested as a reason to delete or merge, so please stop belaboring that point. From what I can see, such sources don't exist, and it seems like you are trying to squeeze blood from a stone in trying to make it so. As I said above, pilot episodes, series finales, and the occasional demonstrably notable episode should get articles. The standard I want to see is The Puerto Rican Day, where actual, verifiable reliable sources discussed the episode. This ain't that. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Starblind. He's right, sources exist. It would be most helpful if people hunted down those sources which likely only exist in paper form. But they certainly exist for all ST episodes. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it certainly would help if people who repeatedly make claims that "yes its notable" and "sources exist" would actually place these claimed sources into articles rather than just making a claim that they do in AfD after AfD. This would give some credibility to their AfD statements. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - just want to understand here are you accusing people who want to keep the article and say that there are sources of lying about it for some other motive? that seems pretty weird.Aisha9152 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, that would be a very weird thing to do. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not lying, IMHO, just lazy. We don't keep articles with vague hand-waves of "oh, there's sources out there somewhere". Tarc (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - who is "we"? Aisha9152 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Really? The project. We're a collaboration, many of us. That means plural pronouns. -- ۩ Mask 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Tarc can speak on my, and the project's behalf? Aisha9152 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Tarc can speak to consensus, and he's described it pretty well. AfD is not a vote, and not every opinion is valid. Strength of argument factors in quite heavily, and what you're asserting now is actually specifically called out in the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- ۩ Mask 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        im not asserting anything im asking why tarc gets to use the royal we and imply that others are not part of the 'we'. he is implying everyone who disagrees with him is not part of 'we' right so anyone who disagrees is not on wikipedia? consensus here hasnt been reached yet right? so i think he shouldnt presume to use 'we' like that, its offensive to anyone who disagrees and sets people up to feel like outsiders. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The royal we" as in those who have an interest in holding articles to established policies and guidelines, as opposed to "you" (the general, not the specific) who want to keep everything ever written by anyone at anytime because "you" like it, and treat the project like a fan blog. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        thank you tarc. see mask, tarc gave a different answer from you. thats why i asked. i dont agree with how he summed it up but its still obviously a different answer since he doesnt claim to speak for the project as a whole. tarc maybe you should make it clear who you mean when you say 'we' next time. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry to interrupt your little "HAHA SO THERE" moment here, but I agree with what AKMask said as well. Opinions that can be cited to and supported by policy and guidelines ("we") are better than "keep, millions of ppl watch it!!!" ("you") appeals to emotion and other argumnents to avoid. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone asserts that there are sufficient sources to keep the article, "Which sources are you referring to?" is an entirely valid question. That's not even an accusation of lying, per se—I may want to examine those sources to see if I agree that they're reliable and acceptable, and evaluate their possible use in the article. Just saying "Sources exist somewhere" is unhelpful—which sources? Where? How would you know, if you didn't actually go find them? And surely if you did so, you can point us to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        that isnt what were discussing here. i just wanted to know if tarc thinks he can talk for wikipedia as 'we' while other people cant. that isnt what he meant according to him but its what it sounded like. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I have yet to see anything but trivial sources, which are explicitly mentioned in policy as not meeting requirements. The only show such a thing exists. Sources must show it's notable. Has this episode impacted a place or group enough to gain coverage? Has this episode in particular had an impact on culture, or is it simply another episode of a notable series? Because that's the notability standard articles must pass, not just 'someone wrote a review and a fanguide tells me what happened in the episode' -- ۩ Mask 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the current references "trivial". They are specifically written about in these sources. You can't keep denying the validity of each source that is found. In two days seven sources have been found, I hardly call that trivial mentions. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you wouldnt. We have 4 sources that are only used to verify character appearances and plot points, and one that identifies the episode "one of the 4 best" episodes of the season. It would be hard to be more trivial. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are the very definition of trivial! Not one of them discusses impact, importance. To a T, all they do is confirm they exist. 'Show X aired last night, showcasing downtown Boston and bringing some entertainment to locals who gathered throughout the city around televisions to see how familiar sights look like on the silver screen' Would be a news report, asserting an impact (and hence notability) for whatever episode of Show X aired. A review, saying what happens in the episode, giving a cast list, and vague comparisons to other episodes of the same show does nothing but assert it exists. The notability standard is multiple non-trivial works. -- ۩ Mask 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point, to those above, is that we know there are paper sources that cover all the episodes. Thus the topic is notable, thus keeping is a valid option as the GNG is met. Merging is still, of course, an option, but one best addressed in discussion outside of AfD as notability is there... Hobit (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements made since nominaton and allow continued work. When sources are found[15]~~[16]~~ that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode,[17]~~[18]~~ we find then that we have guideline encouraged reasons to expand and further source an article... and no longer any guidline or policy sanctioned reasons to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, when i click on your links they show books in which the words "star trek" and "fight-or-flight" are randomly juxtaposed. For instance, in the first, some fictional character in a star trek book has her "fight-or-flight" reaction inspired by a giant spider. In another, a vulcan recalls that his mother taught him that the "fight-or-flight mechanism" is common to all species. Asserting that these things "discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary" and that therefore this article should be retained is, well, frankly absurd. The kindest explanation for what you just did is rank incompetence -- since that at least assumes you looked at the results of your little google book search but misunderstood it. The other option is that you didn't even read what you found, but just chose to willfully misrepresent it here for convenience. Shameful.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume a little good faith, shall we now? Didn't he just insert typical type links that are inserted at the top of any AfD to guide searches? I see how it could be read the way you read it, I guess, but I just read it as offering the links where one commences searching to find more links.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You read it correctly, thank you... and in his personal POV, Bali did not. When he commences personal attacks and makes blatant and unhelpful assumptions of bad faith, I find it best to ignore him. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plain sense of your declaritive statement that When sources are found[19][20] that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode isn't really debatable. That statement was a patent falsehood. Had you written sources might be found at the random searches provided, but i haven't read the results so i don't really know what's there would have been accurate. As it is, i checked the sources for you. There's nothing there. Misreprenstations of this nature are corrosive, and pointing them out isn't an attack. It's neccessary to help people evaluate your crediblity. People that deserve "good faith" don't misrepresent stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is patent and blatent assumptions of bad faith that are corrosive. Shameful. That the book search result offered was not fruitful is fine (not that you offered any in your personal quest to delete) and an actual polite response might simply have been "your book search was not fruitful"... but to continue attcking that general book search pointedly fails to address the improvements made to the article since nomination and the news sourses available that deal directly and in detail to this second episode of a (then) new series where various reviewers offered critical commentary of the episode itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you don't want to be called on falsehoods then avoid them. As for the news sourses available that deal directly and in detail to this second episode of a (then) new series where various reviewers offered critical commentary of the episode itself well, I challenge you to name one. I can't find any and certainly there are none currently in the article -- none findable in generalized google searches either. Where are these sources? Have a link to even one?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you do not want to be called on your bad faith accusations and personal attacks, don't make them. Is civility and polite discourse really that difficult for you? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a single source to offer? It appears that you don't, since you haven't furnished one yet. Again, when it's an actual falsehood that you've been caught in, pointing it out isn't a personal attack or bad faith; it's part of the process of evaluating your statements. Fact 1. You claimed to have found sources that dealt with this episode in detail and that offer critical commentary. Fact 2. You found no such sources, though i had to take the time to go hunting through your randomized google search to prove it. Squirm all you want, but facts are stubborn things.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment was "Keep per improvements made since nominaton and allow continued work. When sources are found that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode, we find then that we have guideline encouraged reasons to expand and further source an article... and no longer any guideline or policy sanctioned reasons to delete", after which I offered search results for research. My civil opinion is supported by guideline and policy... and when offering a search results for consideration and research, I never said I had the sources on a platter for you. Continued bad faith assumptions are yours as exemplified by your words.

A response that could have begun civilliy with "Excuse me, but..." instead resorts to blatant violation of behavioral policy in response... choosing to respond with uncivil comments using less than courteous descriptives such as "frankly absurd", "rank incompetence", "willful misrepresent", "corrosive", "falsehoods", and "shameful". Your repeated and habitual tendency to be nasty to any who disagree with you is not, and has never been, condusive to civil discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone assume good faith in an instance when we've found clear and stunning misrepresentation of sources?. He wrote that four random searches yielded sources that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode yet when one examines the random google news search, the random google books search, the random google news search identical to the first random google news search but held up as a different search and the random google books search identical to the first random google books search but held up as a different search one finds no detailed writing or any critical commentary on this episode and, for the most part, the sources on offer don't even mention the episode at all. These random searches were not offered up as potenitally containing sources but were asserted to actually contain sources that are not in fact there. That's misrepresentation, plain and simple, and it's an ARS tactic i've seen so often that it's either a case of bad faith, or a case of extreme reading comprehension problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We (or most of us anyway) assume good faith because policy instructs that we do so... and does not condone nor excuse the opposite. It is your words here that are the misrepresentation when you act as if you and only you know what was intended by my statement and my offering of a search parameter. If I did not specifically write "These sources specifically show X, Y, and Z"... please do not pretend that they did, as your words are not mine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be the third, and last time, I will ask for an actual source. So far, you've failed to provide a single one. I will assume good faith that your previous asertions that you have one to offer were true, just poorly executed. So here's your big chance. Just provide one. Can you?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mis-represent/mis-quote/mis-interpret my words yet again... as I never once offered a specific source, but simply and in good faith an opinion and a search parameter... an opinion you have denigrated ad nauseum. And, as this discussion seems destined to a "no consensus close and continue merge discussions already ongoing on the article's talk page", anything I might offer here will be far better served if offered there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. We're in agreement. You lied when you said you'd found multiple sources to support your position. Good faith nothing. You claimed that you'd found sources. You now say that you didn't find souces. Someone's got some splaiining to do!Bali ultimate (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only one agreeing with you is that fellow in your mirror. What I offered, and repeated several times above... before and during your continued mis-representing, mis-quoting, and mis-interpretation of my words aside... was an opinion and a search parameter. Your continued and repeated incivility is not at all conducive to civil discussion. What opining editors might agree to, is that the lies and incivilty are yours. I had asked if civility and polite discourse were really that difficult for you. You have answered my question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes. First, the episode summaries on the list lack any details and need to be fleshed out more. You cannot give a complete, but brief, summary with just one or two sentences. See List of Myself ; Yourself episodes and List of Gunslinger Girl episodes for examples of what a Featured List generally looks like. Also note that none of the episodes on those lists have their own stand-alone articles. Second, stand-alone episode articles are subject to the same notability criteria as all other general topics are subject to. The one review cited by the article doesn't appear to even discussion the episode, but the start of series. This does not meet the "significant coverage" test of WP:NOTE for this episode. —Farix (t | c) 12:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect I'm personally uncomfortable with any plot detail beyond the barest outlines, unless it's taken from a summary in an independent source. Anything that is unsourced -- i.e. some teenage trekkies recounting of the episode -- is unsalvageable. I suppose non-independent episode guides can be used to flesh out the list article, however.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes. Severely lacking in notability. Also, on an unrelated note, where do you people get these "be uncivil and get away with it" cards? --Divebomb (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is definitely worthy of discussion... but as a merge discussion is already taking place on the article's talk page,[21] this AFD is an unneccessary duplication of established proper process. And toward your unrelated note, it is a quandary as to how or why such editors get a free pass... but you might gain insight by reading Bullying#Characteristics of bullies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it despite being at Afd with lots of people claiming its notable practically no significant sourcing that is actually ABOUT about the episode has been found, just stuff about the series that mentions the ep. Therefore no notability in itself. 86.20.178.43 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.20.178.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment the sources are poor:^{this version}

might be acceptable as a source for an article on Rick Berman, passing mention of the episode
Episode guide from 'Star Trek 101'
brief plot description in an episode guide book
brief mention of the episode in an interview with one of the actors therein
episode guide from startrek.com
? can't read it, can't evaluate

and I have found nothing else that suggests that this is a pivotal episode or that it has been widely discussed in either the real universe, the TV industry, or anything other than the Star Trek fan-merchandise industry. A redirect to an episode list containing a brief plot synopsis (such as the one at reference 3) would seem to be sensible. pablo 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reference 6, it's an 1100-word article about the first season. The writer gets specific about four of the episodes, "the best" in his opinion, "Fight or Flight" being one of them. 55 words describe the episode's plot and some justification of his opinion of it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I realise that quality is more important than quantity, that can't be very detailed, surely? 55 words isn't much. There are 46 words in your post above (not counting signature). pablo 08:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those 55 words include a description of the episode's plot? We have enough plot/credit reiteration and may I reiterate myself that the viewing the episode provides for this information itself. And when the plot is reiterated, what else is left out of those 55 words? WikiuserNI (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I'll acknowledge I'm more likely to suggest a "keep" when I come across a discussion in which contributors say "there are no sources" and then I find something in a database of news articles that are not available online. Part of the reason simply is that the database I use has only a small number of North American newspapers, so I figure if I find something, there's likely to be more available if more extensive searches of offline sources are done. Still, I am reluctant to keep articles that are lacking sufficient sources – yet here I find Starblind's arguments persuasive. I am not as quick as some to dismiss something like Star Trek 101 as irrelevant simply because it is published by Simon & Schuster; some of these "fan guides" have landed on bestseller lists. And it does seem likely that Star Trek Magazine and Starlog would cover all these individual episodes. Furthermore, there are many books that include analysis of Star Trek series, and their texts are not available online. Some examples include Science fiction television series, 1990-2004, Framing consciousness in art: transcultural perspectives, Star Trek as myth: essays on symbol and archetype at the final frontier, Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 Through 2007, Volume 1, Living with Star Trek: American culture and the Star Trek universe. I don't mean this as a vaguewave although I know it might come across that way. But I believe that enough (mostly offline) text has been written about Star Trek series that individual episode articles can likely stand on their own. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment about "database of news articles" prompted me to take a look at the Cengage Learning database using (tx ("Fight or Flight")) And (tx ("Star Trek")). The relevant hits are:

Bryant, Bobby. "UPN's newest `Star Trek' looks like a gamble that's paying off." State [Columbia, SC] 16 Sept. 2002. This is a 958 word article that lists four of the "best" episodes in season 1 with with 56 words being a summary of the "Fight or Flight" episode. It looks like this was first published to www.thestate.com and then redistributed. Per the archive search function on that site the original title was "Free Enterprise" and they report "Published on 2002-09-17, Page D1, State, The (Columbia, SC)." The article is behind a paywall and is currently reference #6 for the "Fight or Flight" Wikipedia article.
Hussein, Terrina. "The Enterprise returns." Asia Africa Intelligence Wire August 22, 2004. This is a 2108 word article originally published in Sunday Mail (Malay) that seems to summarize every episode in the season. The "Fight or flight" section is 73 words. This section of text is nearly word-for-word identical to the text that's available on various sites. This message board post has the wording (in yellow) and credits the source as www.startrek.com. Thus we can discard this news article as a reliable/independent source. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 books are searchable, and you can peek at the contents of the pages. None of them seems to be talking about the "fight or flight" episode. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa McKay

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

biographical information is completely unsourced, article appears to be primarily a vessel for promotion of book(s). i've conversed with the author of the article asking for further references, only page provided was a link to the subject's amazon "author page" which contains a biography written by the subject and a link to buy her book. no indication of WP:NOTE anywhere to be seen. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any independent sources that mention the subject, let alone show notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2010 (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 20:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing at all in news or books. Sven Manguard _Talk 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own nom. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rye House Kart Circuit

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

Delete. Not notable. Three references, one of which appears to be a book promotion. The others are essentially company organs. Essentially WP:SPAM, WP:PR for company. Student7 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is notable for the fact that many racing drivers learnt there trade here including Lewis Hamilton.Northmetpit (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can only presume this nomination is a joke, yes? Easily notable per Northmetpit. Jeni ^(talk) 10:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2010 (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For one thing, I'm unaware of any valid ground for retention based on whether racing drivers patronized the establishment or not, and invite Northmetpit to post a link citing any ... what, is the local pub next to the track automatically notable because some drivers allegedly ate there? (I use "allegedly," by the bye, because Northmetpit proffers no evidence to back up his assertion that "many" racing drivers learned their trade there.) The only valid reference fails to mention the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG and other relevant policies and guidelines require. I agree that Mr. Hamilton is notable, but of course notability is not inherited. A search on Google UK returned a miniscule 68 hits [22], comprised of this article and various Wiki mirrors, and trivial references on other websites and blogs. Would anyone care to post references from reliable, independent, published sources discussing the subject in significant detail? Ravenswing 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Better constructed searches such as this web and this news search find plenty more sources such as this article in The Daily Telegraph. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heljareyga

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

fails WP:BAND, nothing in gnews and all the current references are blogs. weak sourcing indeed. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added seven new references. Hybrid196 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the added references like [23] are not reliable sources which is essentially a site for promoting heavy metal bands. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2010 (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed two unreliable sources. Hybrid196 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metavid

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

I can't find anything that shows that this website is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you google 'metavid' it gets nearly 400k hits some notes on specific criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Some examples a MIT Technology Review article about the project [24] other in print example articles pixels in public interest, and arts coverage etc. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organisation. The Sunlight_Foundation awarded the project a transparency grant for 164K [25] Was recognised at TechSoup#NetSquared NY3K event where it was selected as an innovative community application [26] etc. Let me know if you want me to list out more stuff. --mdale (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if there is no comment in the next few days I will remove the delete request mdale (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this page [27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdale (talk • contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 20:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few references to the article. Metavid appears to be a fairly important archive that is leading the wave of wanted transparency in government. Because of this, a number of news sources have discussed the website and its importance in the task of transparency, making it fairly notable and meeting the GNG. Silver seren^C 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to atomic structure

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

The material here is already in Atom and other articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a precedent that simplified explanations of physics articles are appropriate content. See for example, Special relativity and Introduction to special relativity. I can't see how this is a different case, the poor quality of the article notwithstanding. Jan 1922 (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appealing to precedent at afds is not very satisfying given how easy it is to create articles, etc - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Why do you feel these articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to atom. While there is certainly precedent (that I support) for simplified/introductory articles on advanced concepts, this article isn't that. It's a quick sentence or two that sounds like an introduction to a school essay, focuses only on one specific application of the stated topic (one that I'm tempted to say isn't even the main reason the topic is notable), and provides no information about it. Concur with nom, it's setting up to be a content-fork of atom. That article already does cover the basics and applications in addition to more advanced material, and is in fact a featured article. The FA review process noted the article contained substantial material accessible to the lay reader and contained summary/overview of advanced material with links to more detailed articles about those topics--that's exactly what one would like to see in an "introduction to" article. The decision to offload a really-simplified-intro/top-level-overview into a separate new article is an editorial one that should be discussed on its talk-page. No problem with the WP:BOLD creation here, just I don't support it (per discussion after a bold act). DMacks (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you only support "intro" articles (Category:Introductions) when the "main" article is inadequate? If so, how do you decide whether or not it would be better to address the main article instead of making a new one to complement it? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support intro vs advanced when there is substantial separate sets of info and two clearly separate audiences that have little overlapping content needs. DMacks (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. If necessary, expand atomic structure (now a redirect) to parallel molecule/molecular geometry. --Kkmurray (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I'm not sure how I missed that atomic structure was a redirect. Perhaps I should have taken this to requested moves instead; this may be better, although concerns about forking remain. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to atom, at least for now. An introduction article like this could and likely should exist; I don't think introduction articles in general are questionable. —innotata 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content fork. Tend to be slightly hesitant for a redirect since it doesn't seem likely that someone would search for "introduction to atomic structure" in an encyclopedia.Chhe (talk) 02:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although introduction to article can be useful for very complex topics, atom just isn't one. The atom article, as a broad interest high traffic article should be accessible to a very wide audience. Any real technical bits can be relegated to more specialized topic, that are summerized in atom. I don't think a redirect is necessary.TimothyRias (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tango in the attic

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

Non-notable band - fails WP:BAND. ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band has been covered by a national Scottish newspaper, The Scotsman; added to article. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not enough for WP:BAND, item 1. – ukexpat (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: They've been covered by another national Scottish newspaper, The Herald. How many more do we need? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Well, you can read WP:BAND for yourself, but it says Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works .... Two ≠ multiple. – ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Where should we set the goalposts? We have two articles from The Scotsman, one from The Herald, one from The List, one from STV... nothing especially earth-shattering, but they all pass the test in terms of reliability and non-triviality. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient evidence for notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG and #1 criteria of WP:BAND. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megaplex (Transformers)

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

Yet another non-notable Transformers character. Only sources are primary or toy listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Transformers are the new Pokemons. WP:FICTION.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge More likely merge with List of Decepticons. Mathewignash (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another poor Transformers article with poor notability and even poorer sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This character never actually did anything. The Transformers: Mosaic stuff mentioned isn't really canon to any part of the TF multiverse. NotARealWord (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NARW. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Machine Wars. --Divebomb (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is Machine Wars itself notable? NotARealWord (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's a debate for another time. --Divebomb (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real coverage on NBC nightly news or CNN, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Decepticons per Mathewignash or redirect to Machine Wars per divebomb. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Konami code websites

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

Prod contested by anonymous IP with no explanation. Not a single entry in this list is verified through an independent reliable source, so presumably entirely a work of original research. The result is a directory of largely unnotable websites - fails WP:V and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Marasmusine (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were some news stories after someone discovered the Konami Code on ESPN.com. They do mention a few other sites that use the Konami Code, but not enough to verify an entire list. Reach Out to the Truth 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; also Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but a brief mention (1 or 2 sentences) should be added to Konami Code if a RS citation can be found/confirmed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. OR, no RS except primary sources. List of an arbitrary topic, with little benefit to the reader except to generate traffic to these sites. At best, some of prominent examples can be added to main article should any RS support that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions for human evolution

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

Firstly, the title is misleading (it should be something like "predictions on future technological advances"). But renaming would be senseless, as this article is totally useless. Currently, it only hold four entries. Someone included sort of a disclaimer, ruling out topics that should not be included. The whole content is pure speculation, which might much better suit in the article covering the technological subject. Such a list tends to be never-ending, surely it is not desirable to have any prediction listed here which some sort of "expert" might once have stated. Therefore, this article's encyclopedic relevance tends to be zero. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no sign that this is headed toward covering an encyclopaedic topic in an encyclopaedic way; in fact, there is no sign of much activity at all. We gave it a chance but it has stalled on the road to nowhere. Time to get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. It is weird, disjointed, and random. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Day

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Vast no. of refs but overwhelmingly from subjects own web sites and ones directly associated with him, blogs, other self-published sites, minor or very indirect (or even apparent non-) mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that there are problems with the sourcing; however, to demonstrate notability or lack thereof, the current state of the article and referencing is irrelevant. The question is: do adequate sources exist? I find 2 brief mentions in Wired: [28], [29], but the coverage in those articles does not suggest notability in any way. The most detailed reliable source I could find was this interview: [30]. I'd change my recommendation however if there were a couple other sources found that were as detailed as that interview. Also as a note, the band seems to get more mentions, without naming this guy by name: [31] -- if there's going to be a page I think it ought to be centered around the band as the band has more coverage and this guy has no coverage except through the band. Cazort (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Cazort in saying that the band is far more notable. Day does not really seem notable himself. —Half Price 17:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage seems to be sufficient to me. This is far from the average BLP AfD where the person has never been mentioned in the press. He appears to be one of the top Youtubers from the UK. See also Talk:Alex_Day#Is_Alex_Day_Notable_.3F (28 April 2010 talk page post).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Didn't see that rather impressive table, it's swayed me. Extensive coverage on several renowned sites. —Half Price 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look carefully through that list. As Doddy Wuid noted above, most of the references are from self-published sources. Can you point to the "extensive coverage" on "renowned" sites? There are some reliable sources in that list, like the BBC site, but that particular source doesn't even mention Alex by name. As an example of the way the sourcing is inadequate to establish notability, there is a BBC article discussing the Vlog Tag Game, but that article does not mention Alex Day by name. Preceding that is a comment claiming that Alex Day invented this game--but no reliable source is given, instead, only a youtube video (which is self-published and is thus not a reliable source to source a factual claim) is given. Thus, what appears to be a claim of notability really isn't one. Spot-checking the article has given me the impression that the overall state of the article is like this. Cazort (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I now realise that I actually can't decide~~, so I'm just going to abstain~~. Thanks for your help. —Half Price 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm actually familiar this with this guy, and have quite enjoy watching his videos in the past, but I'm afraid that I don't think there is currently enough notability for an article about him. A Thousand Doors (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are several points in the "Notability Matrix" on the 'Talk' article that are debatable at the very least. Let's deal with some:

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Being interviewed on a program hardly qualifies as a "role".
"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." - First, his claim to invention of the vlog tag game is dubious; second, how is that game unique or innovative in any way; third, how can "reading the Twilight novel" possibly meet this test?!
"Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." - I'd say the few (not many) published works cited are pretty much all trivial.
"Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." - Whilst Day was a member of the Chartjackers project, Day did not write, compose or perform on the single "I've Got Nothing". His role was more of a promoter/producer of the single.
"Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre" - Whilst Day often claims to have "invented" the "genre" Trock, and some journalists unquestioningly accept this assertion, Day did nothing of the sort, as the article itself acknowledges. The show Doctor Who dates back to the 1960s and people have been writing songs about it for nearly as long. Merely coining a term to describe a collection of songs (which could hardly be accurately described as a "genre" of music) does not equate to establishing a school/tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.126 (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the wonderfully thorough reasoning of 202.83.178.126 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think I've made my mind up now! I don't think I've ever seen such a well-thought-out argument from an IP. Shame he can't sign his posts! —Half Price 18:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the Findsources template above, Google News reveals many sources for "Alex Day", but few (hardly any?) seem to be about this person. A similar search for "nerimon" reveals just six sources, with only one of them being in English. With regards the "Vlog tag game" issue that 202.83.178.126 raised, it seems to me to be pretty certain that he did in fact "invent" it, but that, as also stated above, it is unfortunately not a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution to a field of entertainment". Similarly, I too feel that the "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" argument can only really be applied to the Chartjackers article in this instance, since that was the name under which the track was released. 92.8.40.70 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaving aside the issue of notability (although i agree that this individual is not notable), i think one of the main problems with this article is how it is laid out. by dividing it into sections about this person's "career" in music, television and new media makes it look more like his resumee than an encyclopedic article. i feel that, since this is a biography, the events described should really be written about in chronological order, so, if not deletion, at the very least a complete rewrite is required. tbh, i'm a little surprised that this wasn't deleted per WP:G11. 81.105.179.16 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator as an error. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ophthalmology in medieval Islam

major copyright violations of http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Ophthalmology_in_medieval_Islam_-_Their_education/id/1819897 could someone confirm they copied us and not us them. Thank you. J8079s (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-somatics

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

Not notable. I can't find any independent reliable sources for this. Google finds some blogs about it but none of them seem both independent and reliable. Google news returns 0 hits and 1 mention of the creator Sandra Reeve. D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a few Google books and Google scholar hits, so I think its notable enough to warrant an article. It certainly needs cleaning up, though. —out^offocus 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into these in more depth; they seem to trace back to a single conference paper that is only sparsely referenced; I explain more in my comments below. Cazort (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources I can find are either trivial mentions, about another topic entirely, or are otherwise unusable. I could of course be convinced otherwise if someone else can find and add good sources, but this could probably have been dealt with via WP:PROD. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge This seems to be a fringe topic and neologism that has not yet broken into the realm of notability. It seems this conference paper is a key source (possibly the originator of the term?): [32] All other occurrences except one seem to merely be citing that paper. This book: [33] is not self-published, and has a long paragraph about it. I think this material could be put somewhere on wikipedia, but doesn't deserve its own page. If people would prefer, maybe it could go on the page of the originator of the term, if she is deemed notable (perhaps she is not), and if not, perhaps it belongs as a brief one-sentence mention on a page like dance therapy or something similar? Cazort (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it appears that the paper was written by Sandra Reeve, the originator of the term, so it is a primary source. As far as I can tell, she is not notable for anything unrelated to Eco-somatics, so if it is decided that Eco-somatics is not notable, then an article about Reeves would be inappropriate (unless someone finds some sources I am missing). Some basic information on a page like dance therapy sounds like a good solution though. --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I considered merge targets, but found no really appropriate ones. This seems to be one person greenwashing a dance therapy, and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fringe topic based chiefly on primary sources. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above - could not find a single mainstream, legitimate source. Drake144 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noakhali Zilla School

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

Non-notable school. I realize schools aren't A7, but I hope we can snowball this thing soon. The author of the article clearly wrote this to include himself as a "notable" alum. — Timneu22 · talk 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep~~Comment~~ High schools are often found in AFD to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Can reliable sources be found to verify the school exists, to see if it has multiple instances of substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, not necessarily in English? That would satisfy WP:V, WP:N, and WP:ORG. If undue weight is given to some nonnotable alum, that can be edited out. If the high school were in your hometown, would it be so good a candidate for deletion, in your estimation? This school is described in [[34]]. Is this source [35] about the subject school, or some other of the same name? Edison (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few references to the article. Will try to look up further refs. --Ragib (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and improve: The school is quite notable as a secondary school in Bangladesh. The article is badly written, but the school satisfies WP:N. (To give an idea, this is the main government school for a district with a population of 3 million .) --Ragib (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high schools are de facto notable and there is no reason why this policy should not apply here. However, it needs expanding very quickly or it will just get proposed for deletion agin.--Kudpung (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not de facto notable. They are simply unspeedyable. — Timneu22 · talk 13:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are "de facto notable" if in fact they never get deleted in AFD. Which real high schools (other than someone's home school or a private high school with 10 students have been deleted in AFD in the past year? How many have been kept even when there is a lack of multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage other than directory type information, routine local coverage and the school's website? What would "de facto notability" look like, in your estimation?Edison (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the guideline that as a default all high school articles are retained, and primary and middle schools get merged or deleted, demonstrates a consensus for de facto and that the meaning of the Latin term 'de facto' may not be clear to some users. The decisions to keep high school articles are neither ad hoc nor arbitrary, and are as consistent as AfD ever gets. See this, and WP:NHS. --Kudpung (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under what appears to be the correct spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this is notable in the English language Wikipedia. WikiManOne (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you 'don't see', WikiManOne, needs backing up with a rationale based on how you feel our policies support what you can't see ;) The English language Wikipedia is by no means restricted to articles about things and people in English speaking countries.--Kudpung (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Zila Schools (District School) in Bangladesh are notable. They form the backbone of the primary and secondary education in a country of 140 million people. This network of state backed schooling started during the Raj and continued through the century. It's much like the accepting all villages to be notable enough for inclusion, and even more than that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS, but suggest a move to the apparently-correct spelling with one L. I am insufficiently familiar with local conventions to determine whether Noakhali Zila or Noakhali Zila School would be considered the correct form, however. Note that Noakhali zila is currently a redirect to the district's page and should probably be retargeted regardless. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Sounds like Noakhali Zila School is the ideal target, then. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Zila" is a district - see Zillah (country subdivision) - so the word "school" is needed in the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article provides sourced information on its history and other facts, enough to meet WP:GNG. Sebwite (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please close this now as KEEP. --Kudpung (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mother superior Patapia

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. nothing in reliable sources Jack Vine (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I can not find any reliable sources about her. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Recreation of Nun patapia, which was A7'd, recreated, and A7'd again on 7 Oct 2010. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom has been blocked as a sock on 15 October 2010. Collect (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Training International

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

Contested PROD. I can find no evidence that the company meets WP:ORG or WP:N. I removed irrelevant references (one to a vacancies site, none of the others mention the company), and unsourced information about sportspeople the company have trained. I also removed some of the "ad-speak". I can't find significant coverage at reliable independent sources to verify any of the information or demonstrate notability

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This is apparently a business that trains gym staff. News results are all press releases or incidental mentions in stories about personal trainers for celebrities, getting jobs in the gym business, and the like. Purely promotional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP as written, though the parent company might be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filmnet

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

No references provided; the hits I find on Google News searches aren't in English, so no way to be easily referenced; from what I can gather, each reference seems to be about the purchase of some part of the company to be transferred into the successor companies (i.e., it seems like the company is only notable in that it is the predecessor to other companies). All relevant content (assuming it can be sourced) should be added to the articles of the companies that this was split apart into. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A pioneer European pay TV venture seems like a notable topic to me, and there are buckets of potential sources for this: Google Books has more than 150 hits for "Filmnet". I didn't look at them all, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of these turn out to be trivial or about other subjects, but the first few pages of results turn up a lot of material, including this succinct history of the company in Scandinavia[36] and many other mentions of the company in different markets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I always forget to check in books...I'm going to instead add a noref tag to the article, and add it to my long list of "projects to work on if I ever get around to it." I glanced at a few of the "books"--not all rise to the level of WP:RS, but it appears that one or two do, so I'm willing to believe that this subject can probably be found notable. I think I got a little trigger happy last night after seeing the Filmnet (website) article... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per nominator's reasoned withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Child Characters

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

No criteria for inclusion, no sources, no notability. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Child Characters. BOVINEBOY2008 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Child Characters the criteria for this article is too broad and is likely to, based on the creators apparent criteria, expand to become an unmanageably large article of little value to the project. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to have been created as a place to stick the equally faulty Child Characters template. Wildly indiscriminate and just plain silly, this could swell to hundreds of thousands on entries and still not be close to complete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without an inclusion criteria i can only say, that this is just an indiscriminate collection of information. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cindy Brady and Casper the Friendly Ghost make this short, short list? Hmmm. Trivia. No concrete inclusion criteria. Open-ended list. Just about everything a Wikipedia list should not be in one package... SNOWBALLS would have a better chance... Carrite (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize once some good criteria have been defined. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not another list. Eek. WP:NOTDIRECTORY --CompRhetoric (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad a topic to justify an article; if this list had a thousand entries it would barely scratch the surface. The inclusion of redlinked entries doesn't help. Also, the criteria for inclusion are vague; note the inclusion of Cindy Brady, who eventually became an adult while portrayed by the same actress. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be a better idea to list characters for each show on that show's page, but an overarching list will get way too large to be of any user. Netalarm^talk 04:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete its my first list and I'm tried of my articles being Deleted--Gertie1999 (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Gertie1999[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after discounting SPAs, the consensus is clear on this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Corbs

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

All but one of the references is to things article subject wrote, the other mentions him only in passing. Google News search produces nothing, and other searches produce only things written by Corbs himself. Nothing to indicate this person notability requirements as described in WP:BIO Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Corbs is the hardest hitting sports journalist in the northeast corridor. He is newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.215.83 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T J Corbs is an alias of a poster on sports boards and a writer on Bleacher report who has a long history of using whatever format he can to belittle as many college sports programs he can. His style is to confront and outrage and make no other contribution. I hope you remove him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.203.154 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is this a documented alias of another notable person? In that case, we should simply include information about this persona on the person's main page (again, assuming we can document the connection). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer : No, it is not a documented alias or a pen name. The fact that this entry exists is a detriment to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.84.48.251 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user Halldan1 that appears to maintain this page has the same name as a well-known sockpuppet of TJ Corbs, which he uses to bump up his comment count on his "articles" on his blog. This page is nothing but self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.74.18 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Halldan1 is another one of T J Corbs aliases. He literally has dozens and more likely hundereds of aliases. His main alias is NCAABall. Halldan1 is actually a very respected alumnus of Seton Hall and a frequent contributor on the rivals sports boards relating to Seton Hall University. The legitimate Halldan1 has been a member of that sports board for over 10 years and would >>>NEVER ever be involved with this T J Corbs. Again T J Corbs only purpose is to belittle and antagonize. T J in the name "T J. Corbs" stands for troll journalist. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.203.154 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire page is maintained by Halldan1, most likely an alias of Corbs himself. Corbs repeated describes himself as a "hard hitting" journalist while engaging in selfpromotion on various sports messageboards, a phrase which appeared twice in the wiki entry. Corbs is not a major writer, with no significant articles outside of bleacherreport.com (alexa 1,087). All citations were to his own articles, with no significant outside mention apart from a single ESPN writer, who stated only that "Corbs may have a point". He also may not. Does not remotely sastify notabiliy guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.225.33 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find any trustable sources documenting even the existence of this person. There are simply no sources at all from which a biography can be written on this subject. Notability doesn't even enter into it. This subject is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TJ Corbs is journalism; journalism is TJ Corbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.133.168.20 (talk • contribs)
Comment: Other editors here should focus on whether or not the article is deletable per policy, not on the editor. In fact, some of your comments are bordering on outing. If you have evidence that the primary editor is a sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer, please take it up at WP:SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A blogger at an open-access website with no indicia of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails to meet the General Notability Guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guys is a hack and not a real person or journalist...please remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.230.214 (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether TJ Corbs is the person's real name or not should not be the issue. Rather, the issue should be whether he is a notable sports blogger. This article gives no indication that he has become a significant figure in the sports media. Most of the article is sourced only to his own columns. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long could it possibly take for Wiki to decide this piece of garbage needs to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.158.66 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TJ Corbs Corbs has had two different articles referenced on two of the largest sports sites: espn.com and cbssports.com. If the question is whether TJ Corbs Corbs is a legitimate journalist, clearly he must be to show up on both of those sites within a week's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.38.154.10 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the CBSsports.com reference? It's not mentioned or linked in the TJ Corbs article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the article's defenders on the talk page posted a link to Corby's main page at Bleacher Report: [37]. First, note the self-made description: "Been watching sports in the Norheast Corridor and reading interweb newsgroups for many years. I just want to present my opinion without clogging up any newsgroups." This is the description of a blogger, not a journalist. Second, the editor pointed to the awards; note that the "best" award is that one of Corby's articles got over 10,000 views--this clearly does not rise to the level of notability needed for a Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ConnectIT software

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

Appears to be a fairly blatant advert and with no matches at all in GNews, it seems unlikely that the guidelines of WP:ORG are going to be addressed. Raising for wider discussion after PROD (and all maintenance templates) removed. Fæ (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the blatantly promotional language appears to have been removed, there is still no indication that this product or its manufacturer are in any way notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor clarification of nomination language; by "fairly blatant advert" I am referring to the catalogue of company products, resellers and add-ons of the type one might expect in a sales brochure. None of these lists addresses notability. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Non-notable back-office software, apparently addons for the Sage Group product line. Still quite non-neutral; it provides integration and add-on solutions.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete To clarify, ConnectIT is a suite of software products to connect Quotewerks (not Sage) to various CRM and accounting software packages. (Some of the connections mentioned in the Quotewerks article are made using ConnectIT.) Perhaps ConnectIT should be mentioned explicitly in the Quotewerks article. If it is mentioned, then ConnectIT could be redirected to the Quotewerks article. I don't find any WP:RS to justify a standalone article for ConnectIT. — HowardBGolden (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' Byte CII

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

Sailing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' Byte CII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sailing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' Techno 293 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sailing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' Techno 293 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these appear to be poorly referenced, non-notable events (the links are dead, by the way) and their content seem nothing more than series of templates containing collections of details and/or trivia. I propose that whatever salvageable material there be, if there are any left, be merged into the main article, Sailing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the dead links are fixable, I was planning to go around to fix them. As individual events at an International Olympic Committee-banner Olympic Games, these events are certainly not "non-notable". I'm going to have to be guilty on WP:OTHERSTUFF here, but there are articles just like these (as in, almost empty but for results and dead links) for senior Olympics too. There has also been a prior deletion discussions on Youth Olympics events, which closed as keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' K1 slalom. There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of articles out there on far less notable sporting events with even less prose and only results. This is not the proper route to go down for Olympics-related articles. WT:OLY or Talk:2010 Summer Youth Olympics would have been a better starting point. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 11:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:NSPORT#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games which states: "Events at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's" The Youth Olympics is the internationally recognised version for youngsters. Also, all the competetors are notable, per WP:ATHLETE. Just because they're red-linked, doesn't mean they're not notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it is very unimpressing as an argument, but I didn't see any coverage of this youth olympics in the press when it happened. To compare it with a "real" olympic event seems far-fetched to me. The articles about this youth-olympic could have been deleted en masse IMHO, it lacked impact. But hey, I'm just commenting- not !voting here. Greswik (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage? Your personal opinion on the notability aside, it's been widely covered by RS and it seems disingenuous of you to say this is not a "real" Olympic event when the IOC themselves have referred to this as the Olympics for youngsters. Str Pby (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the explicit understanding that this does NOT mean that the individual athletes are notable. I'd ve willing to perhaps accept that the winner of each event might be, but nothing further. If the consensus here is that they all are, we're going to need a group discussion about youths in all sorts of activities--for example, debaters. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think it is the best idea to establish a notability subguideline based purely off the outcome of one mass AfD. Therefore, as there seems to be no clear consensus on whether the Youth Olympics qualify as a competition whose events are notable under WP:NSPORT. Before this AfD happens again, a larger discussion needs to occur to determine whether the events of the Youth Olympics are notable enough for their own articles. The last AfD on this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' K1 slalom, included far fewer delete !votes than this one, but further discussion on the Youth Olympics' status is still necessary. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 10 kilometre walk

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

Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 1000 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 100 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 10 kilometre walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 110 metre hurdles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 2000 metre steeplechase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 200 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 3000 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 400 metre hurdles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 400 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' discus throw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' hammer throw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' high jump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' javelin throw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' long jump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' medley relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' pole vault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' shot put (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' triple jump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 1000 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 100 metre hurdles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 100 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 2000 metre steeplechase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 200 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 3000 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 400 metre hurdles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 400 metres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' 5 kilometre walk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' discus throw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' medley relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' shot put (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these appear to be poorly referenced, non-notable events (the links are dead, by the way) and their content seem nothing more than series of templates containing collections of details and/or trivia. I propose that whatever salvageable material there be, if there are any left, be merged into the main article, Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the dead links are fixable, I was planning to go around to fix them. As individual events at an International Olympic Committee-banner Olympic Games, these events are certainly not "non-notable". I'm going to have to be guilty on WP:OTHERSTUFF here, but there are articles just like these (as in, almost empty but for results and dead links) for senior Olympics too. There has also been a prior deletion discussions on Youth Olympics events, which closed as keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' K1 slalom. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redlink farm. The youth olympics don't have even a thousandth the notability of the real Olympics, and this level of detail on them violates WP:NOT. Encyclopedias don't include a record of every time someone runs around a track or tosses a ball. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not wishing to sway commentators, I wish to say here that the claim that the YOG doesn't "have even a thousandth the notability of the real Olympics" is questionable. Thanks. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:NSPORT#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games which states: "Events at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's" The Youth Olympics is the internationally recognised version for youngsters. Also, all the competetors are notable, per WP:ATHLETE. Just because they're red-linked, doesn't mean they're not notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass GNC, also per Strange and Lugnuts Purple backpack89 05:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Alright, this is a protest vote more than anything else, but c'mon. Lugnuts is wrong. WP:ATHLETE excludes anything below the senior Olympics and the Paralympics. That the Youth Olympics is the internationally recognized version for youngsters does not automatically follow that they've been included in WP:ATHLETE - any more that the numerous internationally sanctioned youth competitions in other sports have been - and I invite Lugnuts to link to the consensus that they have. "Seems to pass GNC" [sic] is not good enough; I'd like to see some evidence that it does before anyone claims that it does, please. Ravenswing 13:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the explicit understanding that this does NOT mean that the individual athletes are notable. I'd ve willing to perhaps accept that the winner of each event might be, but nothing further. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Youth Olympics is on an equivalent level, possibly higher, to IAAF World Junior Championships and Youth World Championships, which are specifically enumerated by WP:ATHLETE and specifically these events that are part of the sport referred to here as Athletics. This particular meet did not exist at the time the guideline was written but the parallel to the two events is undeniable. Thus the athletes and event articles deserve the equivalent treatment. Gold medalists are notable, no caveats allowed. The purpose of guidelines is to serve as a guide of intent. Like a constitutional argument, you can't claim that since something is not specifically enumerated that it is automatically excluded. Quite the opposite, the intent is clear. Trackinfo (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on! Trackinfo, while I very much respect your work, you should disclose that you were quite involved in writing up the guidelines for the new version of WP:ATHLETE. I do not think you cannot objectively claim that there is clarity of intent in something you helped draft. I cannot find anything in the talk page archives for WP:ATHLETE that makes me believe there was consensus on the point that specific events within Youth or Junior games should get the same treatment as the Olympic games. Location (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Wikipedia:NSPORT#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games. This is not the Olympics. !Votes implying so should be disregarded. However, I guess this warrants an RfC or something? It's a lot of articles. People has been working here, sadly, on something entirely lacking notability :-/. The massive amounts of redlinks on every single page should serve as a warning. Greswik (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's been claiming this is the Olympics? No one. What's been rightly said is this is the IOC-approved, IOc-run version of the senior Games for 14-18 year olds. That in itself, the fact that it's under the IOC banner, would appear to discount your rationale. Str Pby (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, doesn't meet the GNG or NSPORTS. The Youth Olympics are not the Olympics. Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - let's not delete for the sake of deleting. If the concern is redlinks, remember that these are 14-18 year olds who easily could be notable in two to six years as they progress up the pro ladder. I'd ask that if this is deleted, the closing admin please userfy all the content to User:Strange Passerby/2010YOGAth. Str Pby (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the event is notable under WP:ATHLETE as an elite international competition. This is sanctioned by the IOC, just like the Paralympics. Subsequently each gold medalist is NOW notable, because of their participation in this event, though they are so new to the scene that an article has yet to be written about them. As mentioned above, they are more likely to have an article written as they advance in their careers, or possibly also if this becomes their highest achievement. This event is so recent, time has not had the opportunity to get this done. You can't hold red links against them or this article. I repeat this on AfD so often, but nobody listens: there is no reason to rush to judgement, to rush to delete. Deletion ruins any potential an article has. It hides the work anybody else has already done and places a stigma on an article that potentially leads to future speedy deletion. I'm particularly sensitive to this territory because I am the guy who is writing the articles (like James Stallworth (athlete) and Obea Moore) about flash in the pan elite youth athletes. But this is so recent, even I don't know which of these will generate enough significance for my attention . . . yet. Trackinfo (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not the highest level of athletic competition. This is youth games. Not a single person in several random samples from above even has their own page. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR, and WP:ATHLETE/Wikipedia:NSPORT#Olympic and Paralympic Games: the Youth Olympics are not the Olympics. Location (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There has been no discussion on whether or not to include the Youth Olympics in Wikipedia:NSPORT#Olympic and Paralympic Games. Therefore, I ask the closing admin to consider this when judging arguments to delete (or, indeed, keep) citing the above guideline. Str Pby (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch Kadva Patidar

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

Notability. While a claim to notability is made in the lead ("They differ from other Kadva Patidar by their traditions and religion"), no source was brought that shows any such difference. In fact, the opposite was shown. If they are no different, the subject is not notable. I believe the article was moved to/created in main namespace too early. I discussed this in length with the author, but he does not have the time to improve the article. I suggest to usetify the article until it is improved, or delete it. Muhandes (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of refreneces that establishes notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Turn on the Bright Lights. Sandstein 06:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new

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

A mess of a dab page, with (charitably) one acceptable entry (no article though). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turn on the Bright Lights. There is nothing to disambiguate for now, but the it is the title of the 10th track of this album. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Armbrust. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 Leinster House incident

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

Non-notable minor incident, a one-off WP:EVENT staged as a protest. This doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic impacts on the greater situation. WP:NOTNEWS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 07:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I had a feeling someone would AfD this one (especially under the old title) and I thought about it myself until I read that it hit the gates of the Leinster House (Irish Parliament), which makes it notable. It has also received a lot of coverage. It may not be a big deal to hear about it in the U.S. but it was in Ireland. It is also a big political statement in a turbulent economic time for the world and Ireland particularly. He isn't the only Irish person pissed off with the economy. With that, I believe it barely warrants inclusion, at the very least a merge somewhere.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could be merged into the Leinster House article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment — would support a merge into Leinster House if that is the outcome of this AFD. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was considering nominating this for AFD last night when I moved the page title as it seemed a random news story to me. It is an incident to be noted but only briefly in the Leinster House article or a parent article on Irish protests against the banking crisis or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much a blatant WP:NOTNEWS story. The story received a flurry of press reports, all Irish or British, but that was the extent of it. A couple of weeks after the event and it's not in the news any more. It is very unlikely to have any lasting impact. I wouldn't even consider this notable enough to be included in the Leinster House article as that would be undue weight to this incident. Quantpole (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-If it wasn't the Leinster House, I wouldn't have created the article. But as it is, its a notable protest that did receive significant coverage for 2 days and still gets some coverage such as this bbc blog from 10/11/10. If it is deleted, would Joe McNamara qualify for an article?Smallman12q (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't consider the blog (and it's the Guardian by the way not the BBC) to count much towards notability. 2 days coverage in the scheme of things is not a bit deal either. If this is considered not notable I would say Joe McNamara shouldn't have an article as we're normally more stringent about biographies, unless he is known for something else of course. Quantpole (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right...it is Guardian. As the first sentence of the post reads: "A cement mixer with anti-bank and anti-government slogans painted on the side crashing into the gates of Ireland's parliament became the iconic representation of Irish anger against the country's multibillion euro bank rescue package"...the cement lorry that was driven into the gate is an iconic representation of the frustration expressed in Ireland at the Anglo Irish Bank bailout. (If this is deleted...could the closing admin please userfy this for me.)Smallman12q (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. "Minor paint damage" to the gates and one night in jail for the attention seeking protestor. This was not the Murrah Federal Building bombing, nor even someone shooting at the White House. More like someone chaining himself to the fence at the White House. Not every news story that mentions a notable building is notable. I oppose a merge or redirect. The building has a 265 year history, and one sentence about this stunt would be undue weight in the article about the building. Similarly we do not include mention of every single kook who somehow assaulted the White House in the article about that building. Edison (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. 15 minutes of fame does not make a legit article. --Luckymelon (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept Merge to Anglo Irish Bank, which is what the protest was about. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of any enduring notability so fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Only sources outside the 24 hrs of the event are just reporting on the legal case. Codf1977 (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't sure if I was reading an encyclopedia article or a news report. Not opposed to a brief mention in the Leinster House article, or Anglo Irish Bank per Johnbod. -- œ ^™ 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nortel. Consensus is that this and similar content should be in Nortel, if in Wikipedia at all. Editorial consensus needs to determine what content, if any, is to be merged from the history to Nortel. Sandstein 06:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Nortel

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

Already requested speedy deletion and blanked as a courtesy, the page was restored by user: Born2cycle and the template removed. The article appears to be one-sided and biased. Wikipedia is neither a platform for grieveance, nor investigative journalism. However well it might be referenced, the article is non encyclopedic. Kudpung (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support deletion the purpose of the article is blatantly to criticize the company and not to provide encyclopedic content: WP:POVFORK Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion requests like this are attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. Of course the only purpose of an article named "Criticism of X" is to criticize X. Of course it's one-sided and biased - any critical topic article is inherently so. A section of WP:CFORK, Articles whose subject is a POV, specifically allows articles like this, and clearly states, "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."[38] We have myriads of POV articles like this, including many, many other criticism articles. Should all of them be deleted? There is nothing wrong or unencyclopedic about legitimate well-sourced critical material. "Encyclopedic" does not mean "would be in a traditional published-on-paper encyclopedia"... traditional encyclopedias are limited in space in a way that we aren't, and so naturally have more restrictive criteria for inclusion.
I, for one, stumbled onto this article and found it to be informative. The article could be improved, to be sure, but, since it's apparently accurate and properly sourced information, I see no harm for the reader. For example, if a reader is thinking about buying Nortel stock, or considering a position of employment there, or writing an article or report about the company, he or she might go to Nortel, see the link to this criticism article (ideally there would be a summary at the main article), and this information could prove to be useful. Again, I see only benefit, and no harm, for our readers, in keeping it. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly harm for our readers and editors to think that Wikipedia is a place where they can collect random bits and arrange them in a manner to push a point of view for or against a person or comanpy. And yes, other crappy articles like this should be deleted or completely re-written not used as evidence to keep another bad "article". Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask about other crappy articles. I asked about other POV fork Criticism articles, like Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Google etc. Or is it your opinion that all articles like that are examples of WP:OTHERCRAP and violations of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP? Are all these articles harmful to our readers too? What's the qualitative difference? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've misinterpreted "Articles whose subject is a POV". "Articles whose subject is a POV" are articles like Evolution and Creationism, subjects which are a point of view. The subject of "Criticism of Nortel" is still Nortel, because we're still talking about Nortel. "Criticism of ..." articles are "Article spinouts", where there is too much material in the main article so it is spun out to a content fork. There's no need to do this with Nortel, because there isn't enough criticism material to warrant a spinout—the main article contains all the material here just fine. Rather, the only point to this article as it stands is to "highlight negative [...] viewpoints or facts", making it a non-legit POV fork. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~or keep~~ and delete. There isn't too much material here, so I think it could easily be merged into Nortel without a loss of information. However, the company and situations surrounding it have attracted a considerable share of criticism in the past, so I think that this article does have validity; I don't think that it's a simple WP:POVFORK. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears as though there is no material here that is not in Nortel already. Since the "cricitism" material isn't bogging down that article, there's no need for this content fork. As I said above there has been considerable criticism of Nortel, but the proper rationale behind a content fork is merely navigational. Until there is a navigation need for a content fork (ie until Nortel is navigationally overwhelmed with criticism), the only purpose this article serves is to "highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts" which is unacceptable per WP:CFORK. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have acknowledged that Nortel has attracted considerable criticism, yet you are voting "delete". I am confused - isn't the object here to build good articles rather than remove material? Why not help build this information instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I (or you, or anyone else) wanted to add additional criticism of Nortel, the place to do so would be at Nortel, not here. Only once Nortel is overwhelmed with criticism should it be split to a new article. Building Criticism of Nortel before completing Nortel doesn't make sense—all the information here would be more useful in Nortel, where it could be presented in context (just as in a perfect world, Criticism of Microsoft would be in Microsoft, but there simply isn't enough space for it). -M.Nelson (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just as a side note, I compared the length of the Nortel article on Wikipedia with that of Microsoft, and Nortel comes out on top, however viewership of Nortel wiki article is about 3% that of Microsoft in 2010. But, if you are volunteering to insert criticism into the Nortel page? - be my guest. Just don’t forget to keep checking that your insertions at Wikipedia are not removed on the sly when you are not looking. Good luck. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to Nortel. No point in allowing someone to go off and create an article where negative news about some article's subject is selectively displayed in an unbalanced way to make some point. A more balanced presentation is likely in the main article. Much of the content is not "criticism" so much as "negative news." A report that someone was charged with something, or someone got a big bonus, is not criticism per se. There is a difference. "Criticism" would be some editorial writer, congressman, consumer rights group, consumer testing magazine, or other spokesman actually "criticizing" the company. Edison (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nortel. Readers should get the whole story in the same place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would just like to provide a bit of background here: I am the person who created this article, after trying to contribute to the main Nortel article and having my entries deleted on a regular basis for many months. I know I am not a good writer, but I do fair research and provide reliable url's in support. I was hoping, since this article is of tremendous importance to Canadians, that others would step in to help, and am heartened to see the vote to Keep by Born2cycle. I hope sense will prevail here, but realize this battle is only the beginning of the war, unless others step in to help. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other that the statement "John Roth says he's cleared," everything in the Criticism of Nortel article is present in the Nortel article. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your statement, Isaacl, is incorrect. How can you say that everything is present with one small exception???!!! It is simple enough to search Wikipedia and to illustrate that you have been methodically removing sections from this article. Take for example: your edit of 12:28, 3 April 2010 Isaacl (talk | contribs) (5,122 bytes) (→Government bailouts: Remove info that lacked citations characterizing events as bailouts or controversial). Compare the table of contents in the article before that date and the article of today. Where did the government bailout section (referred to in the introduction) disappear to?
  - I am sorry to say, but I have come to the conclusion that you are insincere - you must remember you have been re-reverting this section for months? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That material, which I also later removed, is valid in the Nortel article but not in a Criticism of Nortel article. There is nothing in those citations that explicitly criticises Nortel; by including that stuff here, you're declaring it a criticism, which is original research. Just because Fact X is referenced, we can't necessarily include it as a criticism: it can be included only if Nortel was criticised for Fact X is referenced. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The information is present within the History section of the Nortel article. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, and as such, additions you make can be edited for conciseness, better integration into the topic, avoiding undue weight, and so forth. Just because your addition has not remained exactly as you entered it does not mean that it has been deleted. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge some portions carefully. the presumption is against such articles, and there is not sufficient content for this one. The presentation furthermore is very close to an attack piece. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric M. Daly

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

No evidence that this person meets WP:BIO. Books are self-published, name returns very few Google hits, none of them from reliable, independent sources. A source was added after the proposed deletion was removed, but this again is a publication by his employer, not an independent source. Fram (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate cartridges

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

There are references, but none for this term. It's unsourced because it's original research. It's a term without any formal definition, so it'll never pass muster. I tried to find a decent source so we could include it in Cartridge (firearms) but no one defines this. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep and probably rename to singular form (intermediate cartridge is now a redirect]. Sadly enough, intermediate cartridges became the mainstay of post-WW2 armies, and there's a wealth of printed sources on the subject (#1 is a wikipedia clone, trash it and keep the rest like the Manual of Forensic Emergency Medicine). You might also check sourcing from Assault rifle, which is defined (among other things) as employing intermediate cartridges. East of Borschov 05:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- two side notes. First, absense of a formal universal definition alone is not a compelling reason to delete. A compact car, just like intermediate cartridge, may have many different definitions, so what? the thing exists. Second (and related) there seems to be a certain cultural difference in assessing the significance of the term. The scope and usage varies. Germans use the term (als Mittelpatrone), but it does not seem to be as well recognized in German as its counterpart (промежуточный патрон) is recognized in Russian (perhaps because there are no "lesser-than-intermediate" rounds like 5.7x28mm). In the end, I suppose, it's a matter of I know it when I see it. The 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm NATO and Co. are quite distinct from both rifle and pistol rounds to count as a separate class. East of Borschov 05:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article is too vague do be defined and context driven. An intermediate dangerous game cartridge, an intermediate assault rifle cartridge, an intermediate deer cartridge, Remington's intermediate line of RUM cartridges ( 1 step down from full, the low is 2 steps down), an intermediate varmint cartridge etc or to some like me a medium bore (.32 - .39 caliber) rifle. The one known case where it is used in marketing is by Remington in their power level ammunition for the RUM line of cartridge and this article has nothing to do with it, an if it did it should not stand on its own but as a part of an article whether about Remington or Remington ammunition. If the context is to be kept it can be merged into an article on rifle cartridges, or assault rifles. DeusImperator (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a re-written merge into the assault rifle page should provide the context necessary. On its own it is too vague. I can do that sometime this evening and the article can be deleted. Or something on military rile cartridgesDeusImperator (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment Keep is my opinion. I am fairly sure that Hogg covers, and defines, intermediate cartridges but I do not have the book to hand at the moment. Should I prove wrong I will adjust my opinion accordingly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary (if they want it). To trim down the OR and opinion would leave it with a mere definition, which would still have to be somewhat ambiguous anyway. If no sources appear, it won't really be right for Wikipedia. I'd also be OK with just redirecting it to Cartridge (firearms). bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename to Intermediate power cartridge. Plenty of Google Book hits for both terms [39][40]. The term "Intermediate power cartridge" is found in both The New Encyclopedia Britannica [41] and in SIPRI report on anti-personnel weapons [42]. MKFI (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note the Britannica link above uses the term, but does not define it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (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 05:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the encyclopedia mention does it for me. It may not be defined, but perhaps that is because the encyclopedia writers thought it was so notable that they assumed the reader would know what it was. Kansan (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 11:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Trinidad and Tobago

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

Seems like a cutpaste from a law. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 05:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is just a copy&paste from the law, not an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 06:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 as copyright infringement of this. tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK1: no arguments for deletion, including nominator (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatic grief

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

The article is a stub with one source and could be folded into the article on Grief so as to avoid cruft. At this point, the subject does not appear to merit a seperate article. --Fiat Lux (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grief - The citations and references mention "Complex Grief" and don't say Traumatic grief as a direct mention that would allow for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you two are helping Wikipedia. VNonesuch, you aren't helping Wikipedia by nominating articles for deletion because "it is a stub". Please read and apply Wikipedia:Deletion policy properly. Pmedema you aren't helping Wikipedia by giving zero-effort rationales at AFD, where you don't even look for sources yourself. Wikipedia, and AFD, are helped by editors who see articles and put the effort in, rather than tag and don't do their research.
It took me ten seconds to put "traumatic grief" into Google Books and come up with Jacobs1999, which is a 112 page book on this subject, describing its analysis as a disorder and discussing its consensus psychiatric diagnostic criteria. It doesn't take much longer to come up with other sources discussing criteria for the disorder, sources giving several of the various names, and sources discussing its inclusion in the APA's DSM. This is a valid stub with ample scope for expansion, nominated solely for being a stub, and tagged for deletion some 3 hours after it was created. Deletion policy applied properly in this instance is keep and allow the article to expand in the normal organic way. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 06:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YoungPrince

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and SALT Article has been deleted at least three times before, if I am reading the logs correctly. Also, obvious COI from author. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt - Young Prince also needs to be salted. Lots of WP:OR and no WP:RS. User:Thisizprince, a WP:COI WP:SPA, seems to be... passionate about this article and ones associated with it. - Pmedema (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Duffield

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

Prod declined with an edit summary of "lame excuse". Absolutely no sources existing or found. Fails WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment: Provides great detail on Duffield. Also, I added some external links to the page. 207.216.29.12 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.29.12 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Victoria Duffield's Wikipedia page has detailed information about her personal life, music and her journey in The Next Star. It also includes films and tv series she's been in. 207.216.29.12 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.29.12 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Her page has a lot of information about not only her part in The Next Star, but also the different TV series she's been in and TV movies. It now has many different sections including, Personal life, The Next Star, Music and Filmography. It also includes references to articles and a link to her official website. The Victoria Duffield page should not be deleted. 207.216.29.12 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.29.12 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original prod rationale of "No sources, WP:GNG fail" was actually pretty accurate, and not lame at all. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 15 year old girls gyrating like this[43] to pseudo hip-hop is horrible. Apparently she made the top 6 of Season 3 of the Canadian talent show "The Next Star". I added some cites to the article, but its local press and really not a lot. Ideally, we could redirect to The Next Star and move over a sentence or two of content with it (and the refs), and do the same for Mimoza Duot (currently PRODed) if refs exist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has enough info. ----iSquishy (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 gnews hits [44]. current article includes 2 very localised news sources. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, fails the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER going away. Let us know if you ever get a second 15 minutes, Victoria. Ravenswing 14:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, she's performing at the Clayburn Gourmet Gallery in Abbotsford on November 19, book your travel now!!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, she's doing better than Brianna Rieffel, anyway ... Ravenswing 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Next Star#Season 3. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Location (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary's Catholic Church Maryborough

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

I don't know why this church is notable. I think it's probably not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's recorded in the history book cited?
Having said that: This too is based upon that self-same history book, and Nestene68 (talk · contribs) filched it wholesale and put it in the first version of the article. Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significan coverage in third party reliable sources about church. I found only this book, which alone is not enough to establish notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Psst! There's a reason that the {{find sources}} template imposes the exclusions on books that it does.
  The actual book, already cited, is
  Denis Martin (1980). 100 Years and More, Catholicism in Maryborough, 1849–1980. Catholic Church.
  Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy WP:ORG. A typical church, referenced only to its own website and a local history book (a 72 page work held by only 2 libraries worldwide). Edison (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is noted in all the places where a parish would be noted, namely the directories of churches in the area. It's a real church where baptisms, weddings, and funerals happen. When the article was written, the nom's concerns could have been brought to the article's creator, unfortunately, no longer active on Wikipedia. I would let this article be and wait for improvement by an local editor who could find with little effort coverage in Maryborough or Brisbane media of this 150 year-old parish to pass WP:ORG. Asking for this to happen in this little Afd window is absurd. patsw (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, In my experience, the little AfD window is the only time articles like this get improved. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is so, then you make the point this essay WP:TIMELIMIT#Articles for deletion nomination seeks to avoid as undermining the value of Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the reason for the nomination. I'm just saying that sometimes no one seems to care about an article until it's nominated for deletion. But that's neither here nor there - there's a lot of churches in the world and a lot of 150-year-old churches in the world, a lot of real churches with baptisms, and a lot of churches that appear in "directories" (which Wikipedia is not), the question is why this one is notable when most aren't. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply convert to a redirect to Maryborough, Queensland where a short paragraph on the church is appropriate ? Maybe a standalone article is not sustainable but the subject is pertinent. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary with Maryborough, Queensland. The number of redlinks speaks for itself that this is a NN local church. Its hisotry is intersting, but NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is this a copyvio of this page cited by Uncle G above? If so, delete. If not,~~ redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane as non-notable parish under WP:ORG, but allowing re-creation if notability can be established later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Lists are copyrightable under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia to the extent that they are creative, which includes both presentation and selection of facts. This one is clearly creative in both accounts. I've removed the pasted text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the copyrighted content has been removed, redirect as above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of "originality" test for copyright in Australia is even lower: Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (2002) FCAFC 112 (15 May 2002) --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no gnews coverage [45]. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

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

Non-notable game show tournament. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Sottolacqua (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails general notability guidelines per Sottolacqua's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One week of a daily TV show is not worth an article, by common sense if nothing else. Nothing happened different from any other week except they maybe gave out bigger prizes. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the World Almanac of Gameshow Trivia. —Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.
Keep or merge to List of Jeopardy! one-off tournaments. I found sources including:
- "Entertainment Extra". Daily News (Kingsport). September 29, 1993. p. 11 [46]
- "Jeopardy! Hero, Pals Celebrate" Miami Herald. December 5, 1993.
- "Chabot Instructor Gets an Encore on 'Jeopardy'". San Jose Mercury News. October 28, 1993. p. 1B Local
- "'Jeopardy' Welcomes Chesapeake Native" Virginian-Pilot. November 18, 1993. p. B2

RJaguar3 | u | t 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the tournaments aren't individually notable, how would listing them all in one article address the same notability arguments? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage in the articles listed above (I've checked the first, and I think I can pull up the other 3 to briefly summarize them) is sufficient for WP:GNG. Putting them in one article may help in organization and length. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning them in a Tournament section in the main article is sufficient. A wholly separate article is unnecessary. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I couldn't get "Jeopardy! Hero" or "Chabot" on ProQuest. "Jeopardy! Welcomes" is a brief (42 words) description of Al Lin's (from Chesapeake) appearance in the 9th tournament of champions, where the paper states he would qualify for the tenth anniversary tournament with a win. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged with ToC, UtoC, and Super Jep!. Teen, College, Celeb, Kids, and Seniors should also be one merged article. Us441(talk)(contribs) 12:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article simply does not pass WP:N. It really is not worthy of inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jeopardy has these often. No indication this one's notable enough that it would help a reader to have a separate entry from the general jeopardy article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. Game shows often have special episodes now and then, and while they often give ratings a little boost they aren't notable events. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One of the core disputes seems to be regarding the sources written by people associated with UCL but published by other, independant, entitites. Wikipedia policy does not offer a straight answer to whether or not these should be considered independent which means this discussion can only be closed as "no consensus". There are suggestions about renaming that seem very sensible and should be discussed further on the talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences

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

Nothing more than a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. Prod which was contested without comment. RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources may easily be found such as this, which covers the topic in detail and tells us that it has a high research rating. Or that which covers the topic in detail and tells us about its methods of teaching engineering. The topic is therefore notable and it is our editing policy to keep such material. The guidelines of the project mentioned are not such an official guideline or policy and so have no standing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first link is to a single paragraph in a college guide which appears to include all colleges. Comprehensive directories like this dont do much to establish notability. We dont use phone books as references for similar reasons. The second link does mention the topic but I'm still not seeing this rising to the level demanded by WP:SIGCOV, specifically because this university department isn't addressed directly by the reference, its only a brief, passing mention.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly this as pointed out is just a glorified directory listing, however the second one is actually not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain. The give away is if you use the "Search this book" feature for "London" the only 9 hits are in lists of references. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable constituent academic department, the links provided do not show any significant coverage of the department - UCL is clearly notable, its departments are not necessarily. What next articles on departments of FTSE 100 companies. Codf1977 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided satisfy the definition of WP:SIGCOV and so your comment is counterfactual. I don't see what the FTSE 100 has to do with it but that observation is counterfactual too. For example, the Financial Times and the FTSE 100 both have separate articles even though they are wholly-owned properties and departments of Pearson PLC. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not, and comment is not counterfactual - my point is are we going to have articles on the BP Engineering department for example. This is not a separate legal entity it is part of UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see template:BP for our articles about the divisions of that company. Whether such bodies are legal entities or not is quite irrelevant to our coverage as it is not our policy to structure our articles according to company law. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is just a sub section of a larger body which shows no signs of being notable or significant in its own right. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments continue to be counterfactual. For another source, please see chapter 8 which has much to say about the facilities, history and staff of this institution. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references and external links provided in the article are all primary ones, I'm not seeing how this satisfies WP:SIGCOV.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links provided in the discussion above are to secondary sources. I have not yet added these to the article as we are here primarily to discuss the article, not to work upon it. Per our editing policy, you should please evaluate the article's potential rather than its current state. It is still an early draft - not yet a month old - and has only been worked on by a novice editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:1Particularly5 am, Today (UTC−4)

That is what is being done here. Evaluating the topic based on available references and possibility of expansion of the article to bring it up to notability standards. Just not seeing how this topic can meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same reason as (User:Colonel Warden) - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

and what might that be ? that coverage about an unrelated university in a totally different country was thourght to be about this one ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This "article" (using the term loosely) breaks so many policies/guidelines that I don't even see how deletion could be questioned. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Col. Warden: is essentially a stub, but needs to be expanded, not deleted. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how do you see this meeting notability guidelines?--RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response IMO, Col. Warden's arguments are already more than sufficient. The discussion should have been over when he linked the academic report of its engineering teaching methodology. However, even without the coverage in the independent, 2nd party publications which he has already provided, the article topic is a major, internationally regarded engineering faculty that at least has common sense notability per alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations in the contexts of academia, engineering, and the city of London. A Times of London archive search alone results in over 1400 hits alone for "University College London" engineering, so I don't believe it is a reach to assume it has sufficient independent coverage in it or the the dozens of other 2nd party newspapers and publications based in London. No doubt, the article is a stub and needs to be cleaned up and expanded, and it should be tagged appropriately for those issues. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but as above the link that you claim settles it is actually not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain. As for the hits number you quote there is zero indication that they will be about the Faculty of Engineering Sciences, nor do I think it can be assumed they are. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is and shame on me for not noticing that above. That still doesn't change my overall opinion of the faculty's notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice it at first, but without the refs to support it, how can you conclude it is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've already answered that above, but there is additional coverage (as is in this book here, not to mention the other book on this history of the university) and, as I said, it is not a huge assumption that there is more. It is an active, established, substantially sized research engineering faculty that covers a myriad of disciplines. It is a natural break-out article to main UCL one, but needs to be cleaned up and expanded. CrazyPaco (talk)

In both cases those are written by non-independent authors and are not suitable for determining nobility. Codf1977 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the science community considers it notable, then its notable. They are the ones to make a decision about this sort of thing. Ample coverage as well. Dream Focus 19:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide refs to show that ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you actually read the article through before trying to destroy it? Honestly now. They receive large amounts of money to do research in various things(which means they are considered notable for their achievements). They've also have notable professors that have taught there in the past. One of these professors won a Nobel prize after going to work there. As for as printed media, the Economist published a bit about them [47]. I'm sure all the grants they get are mentioned in the news media somewhere, although they probably just mention the college not this section specifically by name which is why Google news search isn't showing it straight away. If all high schools are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, I don't see why such a well established educational facility like this wouldn't be. Dream Focus 15:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I am looking for the evidence that others think so and as of now all I see is that Notable people have worked there but nobody thinks in and of its self the Faculty is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article for every department. They are all very similar articles to the one been nominated, except UCL Faculty of Laws and is also the only one which seems notable. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. They should all be redirected to the Uni's article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an article for each of the eight faculties, very few departments (of which there are far more) have an article.194.75.238.104 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable link farm. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, which is exactly what this article is. A redirect back to the university article might be appropriate, but the individual department faculties do not pass WP:GNG. All of them should be redirected/deleted. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have removed the inappropriate external links from all of these articles. SnottyWong ^prattle 00:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The appropriateness of the links is a separate issue from notability. We are not judging the quality of the article here. It is clearly a stub that needs work. The topic we are discussing is a long established (over 100 years) publishing research faculty that is the subject of (at least) two independently produced book chapters (here and here). It also gets hundreds of Times of London archive search hits, which is subscription based, but I assume at least one or two is appropriately covering the subject. This UCL faculty is also noted for initiating training in the field of chemical engineering. How does that not pass notability guidelines? I see every one of the criteria (significant coverage; reliable, independent, secondary sources; verifiability) as being satisfied. Which one(s) is not? We are not talking about merging a stub back to a parent, we are talking about Afd. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first book makes only passing referances to "Faculty of Engineering" nothing of any substance, the second book does not mention "Faculty of Engineering" once and is more about UCL than the Faculty of Engineering. So still looking for any significant coverage on the Faculty of Engineering. Codf1977 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Both chapters are completely devoted to the history of UCL engineering ...that is the Faculty of Engineering. CrazyPaco (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, however that is a moot point, as to be WP:SIGCOV they have to be produced by independent sources and in both cases the authors are not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is exactly what is there in "One hundred years...", which is a collections of papers presented at the American Chemical Society symposium in Toronto, Canada. Obviously part of this symposium dealt with the history of the field. Presentations at such symposiums are typically invited. These presentations were then collected and published in the volume overseen by an independent editor (affiliated with UT-Austin) and published by an independent academic publisher. Such a presentation would not even have been accepted to be made at such a symposium, or included for publication in this collected work, if UCL was not a historically notable faculty in the field of engineering. The authors were not writing about themselves. That chapter is absolutely not "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases" nor is it " self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement". It is ridiculous to even suggest it. According to the suggested logic of such affiliation negating notability, essentially every single published history about an academic field or about an institution would be ineligible for notability because the author was affiliated with their field or institution. Beyond that, every single academic paper ever published would be inelibile to denote nobility because the authors are affiliated with their field, and derive their living from publishing and acquiring grants with and from institutions and agencies dedicated to that field, which could be viewed as a COI. It is nothing less than condemnation of the entire academic process, which contradicts the sources that Wikipedia has identified as the "most reliable". Both cited book chapters are produced by independent publishers, the other one having been edited together by a notable economic and social historian who published many histories about London. CrazyPaco (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are reliable sources is not the issue - the issue is are they coverage that can be used to determine if the Faculty is notable; and WP:SIGCOV deals with that, and it says that the sources must be : "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject - and you are without doubt affiliated to the subject if you work for them. Codf1977 (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly doubt as we see from this discussion. WP:SIGCOV is not a hard policy and every time it is proposed that it is made into one, the community rejects the proposal because there is a general consensus that some wiggle room is required for cases where we want want to include topics, regardless of the finer points of sourcing. The concept of independence is not an absolute one, as Crazypaco explains, because all authors are associated with their topics in some way. What we should consider is the objective of this guideline. This is to exclude topics which are of little interest to our readership because they are too parochial or trivial. In determining this, we should apply some common sense, as the guideline advises. It does not seem sensible to suppose that a major academic institution of this sort has not been been noticed and is of no interest to our readership. In any case, the search for sources is not complete and there are many more to find. For example, checking recent news, we see that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an engineering student at UCL. This association is notable, being covered by numerous sources, and so it is grist to our mill. The more one digs, the more one finds and it is not sensible to be deleting the article when the topic has proved so amenable to thorough research. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has many more than two sources and so your point is moot. Your theory is, in any case, not what is is said by WP:SIGCOV nor is it what is meant as it would lead to the absurd conclusion that a history of America would not be accepted as independent if it were written by an American historian. You need to have some overt reason to discount intellectual independence, not a vague insinuation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the authors of the section working for UCL ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To take one example, Don Freshwater did not work for UCL. It is interesting to note the many illustrious academics for whom we have yet to have articles. I have created three like this so far and could probably find dozens if I had time. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup - can you please detail here what links you think now show WP:SIGCOV as it is not clear. All the ones listed on this page have been shown not to be and of the ones one the article page that I have looked at none discusses the Faculty in any detail. Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources cited seem satisfactory for our purposes and the article itself thus serves as a good list. In judging the quality of these sources according to our general practise, it may help to compare with another article such as Matthew Yusuf Smith — a BLP which you created and still maintain. We observe that much of the content of that article is sourced to the blog written by the subject himself. Most of the other sources seem equally dubious. Please see The Golden Rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the validity of the sources in the article, I freely accept that self published sources or sources close to the subject can be used in the article, just not for demonstrating notability. As I said, however, can you please list the sources that show significant coverage of the Faculty, it is mine and others contention that they do not exist. Codf1977 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) point about article I have created, not appropriate for here so addressed on User talk:Colonel Warden[reply]

Sources have been provided in abundance. The problem seems to be that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not ones that show that others think it is notable - see my list below. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator seems to have this right, and as it stands, this article has no independent sourcing since all but one source is from the university itself. AniMate 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is self-contradictory in that you acknowledge an independent source and then say there there are none. More sources are being found and have now been added to the article and so your comment is now even more counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Each of the books linked above ([48] and [49] for the avoidance of doubt about which ones I'm referring to) has a chapter about the subject, so has significant coverage, is from a major academic publisher, so is reliable, and is independent of UCL. All of the requirements of the general notability guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", have therefore been met. I would advise anyone who claims that these chapters are not about the article subject to actually read the sources rather than search for a specific phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them and disagree with you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are those chapters about, if not this article's subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may as you say be published by a major academic publisher, but as are of no use in determining notability as the authors of those sections are not independent of UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, independence requires that authors not be talking about themselves, as in an autobiography, or that the material should not be promotional in nature, such as an advertisement. Neither of these considerations apply here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they are talking about the organisation they work for. Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case for all sources. In any case, it is common for experts to be intimately associated with their subject. This is not a problem provided that there is editorial oversight and if they have professional reputations for accuracy and good ethics to maintain. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as per WP:SIGCOV it excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject and all the sources provided by you and others claiming it is significant have been shown to fail that, either written by a member of staff, a directory, or just not about UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:SIGCOV provides a detailed list of what it is talking about: "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases". The sources provided are none of these, being mostly academic histories and papers of the highest quality and written by a variety of authors. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes actually look at the four words prior to where you chose to start your quote it says "but not limited to". Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of those book chapters may have been associated with UCL, but Continuum International and Springer have chosen to publish the books, so validating them independently. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the validaty is not the issue, it is the notability of the Faculty, and if no one independent of UCL is writing about it, then it is not. Those books fail WP:SIGCOV Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a bit more to the history section.194.75.238.104 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your sterling effort which is much appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are articles on the departments, is there any reason why information shouldn't be merged there?--RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are ten different departments in this faculty. If we break the information down to that level then we will still need this article to provide a framework or structure within which to cover each department. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article be needed? Notable things such as the first Professor of Engineering can be well covered in that person's bio article and the department's article. Summarizing information like this in yet another article seems like over-coverage. A "framework" is not necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles form a natural hierarchy or web. The titles such as this one's are useful search terms and so assist navigation. As more sources are discovered, information is slotted into its natural place. In this way, the encyclopedia grows and is made comprehensive. Deleting elements, as you suggest, is disruptive to this and there is nothing to be gained. As the article already exists, it is you that must make a case to remove it. I'm not seeing one. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google news archive for "UCL" and "engineering sciences" shows results. [50] Sometimes the word faculty is used before, and sometimes after "engineering sciences". Anyone not convinced this article should be saved, or want to find something to help convince them, can sort through that. Hit Google book search from there and thre are more results to wade through. Dream Focus 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through that list, and they are mostly just mentions, (in the form Jim Bloggs works at ......) nothing of any significance - it is clear that it exists.Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a first order division of a major university, and our practice has been to keep all of such. It's a matter of practicality--essentially the same reason why we keep law schools and the like. WP:N is a guideline, which only really applies to the overall coverage of something--how we divide it up is less consequential than whether we cover it at all. Articles of divisions like this can and should be greatly expanded, for all the individual departments and research centers comprising it should have paragraphs--though not separate articles. I am not in favor of indefinite inclusion of separate articles for small subunits, biut the inclusion of articles like this are a reasonable compromise. . (For individual departments, it's another matter, but I think the star quality departments at the most important universities should have pages. I have previously voted to delete most of them submitted here, which do not really reach this standard, but then I can immediately think of about 100 we do not have, but certainly ought to.) DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual you are wrong on the norm - as the nom says, the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines are clear that is not the case. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your project guidelines are just your own private fantasy and are not an official Wikipedia guideline nor do they represent general practise. For example, see Category:Departments_of_the_University_of_Cambridge — over 50 different articles for the departments of that university. Or Category:Harvard University schools. And so on. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD is all about the notability of the Faculty and those advocating deletion on the grounds of lack of of any demonstrable reliable sources, independent of UCL or the Faculty, covering the Faculty in significant detail, I thought it would be best to list the sources provided both here and on the article

at the AfD

Ref	Comment
Choosing Your Degree Course and University	This is a directory.
Research and Practice of Active Learning in Engineering Education	Not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain
One hundred years of chemical engineering	Section written by two members of UCL staff and therefore as the authors are not independent of UCL it is not suitable to judge notability.
The University of London and the world of learning	As above the section is written by a members of UCL staff and therefore as the author is not independent of UCL it is not suitable to judge notability.

on the article (as of this version)

Ref	Comment
UCL Review 2009	From UCL and therefore not independent
The Academic Units of UCL	From UCL and therefore not independent
The University of London and the world of learning, 1836-1986	(as above)
History of the Chemical Engineering Department at North Carolina State University	Only one ref to UCL "1882 A course in "Chemical Technology" is offered at University College, London." - no mention of the Faculty.
One Hundred Years of Chemical Engineering	(as above)
People, pipes and processes: a short history of chemical engineering and the Institution of Chemical Engineers	Confirms that E. C. Williams was at UCL, however no mention of the Faculty.
Pioneers of Computing	Only mention to UCL is that "Fleming Ambrose was that A popular teacher at University College" - no mention of the Faculty.
The Rise of Scientific Engineering in Britain	no mention of the Faculty
30 years of the international interet	Mentions of "UCL" nothing of the Faculty
Professor John Mullin: professor of chemical engineering	Confirms Professor John Mullin as Vice-Provost of UCL - no mention of the Faculty
Peter Dunhill obituary	Confirms Appointment at UCL as a lecturer in physical methods in the department of biology - no mention of the Faculty
Professor Peter Dunhill, biochemical engineer	As above, confirms bio details of Peter Dunhill, but no mention of the Faculty
UCL banks on Suffolk park life	About UCL opening [email protected] no mention of Faculty
London's little idea	about London Centre for Nanotechnology no mention of Faculty
The appliance of science to crime control	about Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science part of UCL, no mention of Faculty
Director of Jill Dando Institute appointed	about Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science part of UCL, no mention of Faculty
UCL launches centre for academic entrepreneurship	about Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science part of UCL, no mention of Faculty
Energy boost	about Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science part of UCL, no mention of Faculty
New £2m university research fund awards first grants	Has feeling of a press release, no mention of the Faculty
Academic Departments by Faculty	From UCL and therefore not independent
Departments, Institutes and Centres	From UCL and therefore not independent

So it is clear that the Faculty has no significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is clear that the faculty has plenty of significant coverage. Your objections are laughable as units like the Jill Dando Institute are part of the faculty and so you seem to be simultaneously arguing that the UCL can't be broken into components and yet, if we have a source about a component, it must be addressed at the level of the component. This is inconsistent, just as your nitpicking about sources is inconsistent with your own practise elsewhere where you are content to use blogs in support of a junk BLP. Wikipedia is not a game and so it is not about winning. Please use your time here more constructively. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are none so blind that will not see - It has no significant coverage as to be coverage of any entity it has to at least mention that entity by name otherwise what you are doing is synthesis. Your argument here has gone from claiming that "this which covers the topic in detail and tells us about its methods of teaching engineering" which has absolutely nothing to do with UCL to trying to argue the point based on other articles I have created/worked on - it is frankly your position that is totally laughable.

My position is clear that any article must meet the relevant guideline for significant coverage about its self; if the smallest department at a university is meets the inclusion guidelines then that does not mean that every department up the chain does. Codf1977 (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions by name are not required because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a directory. What we discuss in our articles are topics. The essential nature of this topic is engineering at UCL. This has evolved over time from the earliest pioneering to the current comprehensive and detailed structure. To present a historical perspective, as is our goal, we cannot be so literal minded because organisations commonly change their name and detailed structure quite often and it is impractical to spawn new articles every time they do this. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article about some academic department of UCL. Reasons for deletion have been clearly specified above 87.194.84.46 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the above ed. seems to be essentially a spa devoted to increasing the comparative coverage of another UK university. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address belongs to an ISP in London so the possibility of multiple editors exits but does not seem likely in this case. The editor definitely has an interest in higher education in Great Britain, but I wouldn't call this a single purpose account since it goes back over a year and has edited multiple articles about multiple universities.--RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per DGG's rationale. UCL is notable, how the articles surrounding it are organized is not a discussion for AfD, and having a separate article for this unit is not irrational.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I guess that it's fairly predictable that I will take this view, since I started the article. My view was then and remains that this is a natural and logical break out article from the main UCL article, where space for details of the historical development, activities, faculty and alumni of this and each of the other seven constituent faculties of UCL is necessarily limited. Furthermore my view is that this faculty is sufficiently notable for an article in its own right. In my view this notability is not merely due to it being one of the constituent faculties of a large and important university, but also because of the historical and continuning importance and notability of the faculty's activities (which obviously includes the activities of the departments and centres within it), its significant faculty and alumni and its record of educational innovation. A number of examples of such have now been added to the history section of the article, together with high quality citations. I am in no doubt that more could be easily be added.

The point has been made above that the information in this article would be better broken up into separate articles for each of the departments and centres in the faculty. My view on this is that, firstly, such articles (with a couple of exceptions) do not yet exist, whilst this one does. Secondly, this article would still serve as a logical structuring article and break out from the main UCL article, even if all of the departments had separate articles - in fact it would then arguably be even more useful to readers. Thirdly, departments at universities tend to change over time, and to create a very large number of third level articles which rigidly reflect the current departmental structure creates the likelihood of regular mass restructurings of articles of their content being required. Of course faculties evolve over time as well, but with just eight any evolution of articles which might be required by, say, a merging of two faculties, would be a far more straightforward task. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see the two book sources as independent because they were published by independent publishers. The actual authors being involved with UCL is not so important. Seems best to cover the topic at this title, but a rename to say 'Engineering at UCL' can sort out that problem. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Engineering at University College London" would be an even better title. We shouldn't assume that a reader would recognise the acronym "UCL". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book sources would seem to be independent enough for our purposes. It does need to be renamed (I'm an engineering faculty member and I had no idea what UCL was) Hobit (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Could we not just have redirects from Engineering at UCL, Engineering at University College London, University College London Faculty of Engineering Sciences etc and keep the article at common name? Rangoon11 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, articles often have many redirects pointing to them to cater for alternative titles. The move function is an easy way of creating such an alternative name. There's often a significant amount of fuss and dispute about the primary name though. Queen Victoria used to be my favourite example but I find that this has now recently been moved to this obvious title — it was formerly Victoria of the United Kingdom. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the primary article name is up for debate, but as UCL is a disambiguation page, "Engineering at University College London" or "University College London Faculty of Engineering Sciences" probably makes the most sense IMO. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the proper name of the university as a whole is University College London (though very often shortened to UCL, including by the university itself e.g. in its logo), the proper name of the faculty is UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phil Bridger's comment makes the most sense to me of anyone's here. With that kind of coverage (and it's the publisher not the author that defines whether or not the book is independent) this appears to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of a specific guideline against this type of article, I can't see a good reason to delete this. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Cooke

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

Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of sources to support the general notability guidelines or WP:ENT. No matches in Google News and nothing significant in Google Books apart from one non-circular mention that does not demonstrate 'significant impact'. The article has been around waiting for improvement for 4 years and still relies on a myspace profile, it seems unlikely that independent primary sources will be added in the near future to address these issues. Fæ (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note Some potential sources have been mentioned at the article's talk page. The editor who added those has told me (in IRC) that he is going to get some newspaper/magazine references to add to that list, but he needs to find the hard copies for the details. I make no comment on the suitability or otherwise of the sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the sources mentioned on the article talk page, several are from non-RS sites. I am not convinced that Cooke meets the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find a mention of him in a Reliable Source, the Toronto Star, but I don't think that's enough to qualify him as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN and WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to get regular gigs but hasn't won any awards or done anything else notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Randy Cooke&fulltext=1 Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Renner

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

Non-notable individual with no independent coverage. Some sources exist mistaking him for Jeremy Renner. Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added more supporting references for James Renner's page. He's well known in Ohio for his contributions to journalism and outside the state for his work with Stephen King and his books of nonfiction. I don't see any supporting references actually mistaking James for Jeremy other than Jeremy playing a character named "James" in a film. Hopefully, my additions help. 12 October 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.174.197 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets general notability guidelines. Has already also survived one earlier Afd with a majority Keep sayers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Randall

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

No evidence that he's ever played professionally in the NRL (Jim Beam Cup is not fully professional), or if he's still on a pro team squad. Minor coverage in a minor local newspaper. The-Pope (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He was part of the winning team for the Newcastle Rugby League, which appears to be a major competition. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails the rugby league section of WP:NSPORTS found here and the sources aren't about him, they are about the team that won the Newcastle Rugby League, which is a semi-professional competition. Also I'm quite confident that every person who won the Grand Final would have been mentioned in those newspaper articles that are used as sources and yet they don't have wikipedia articles. However, if he did end up getting a game for the Storm next season (seems unlikely) then this article should obviously be recreated. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played in the top level, only in a local league. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rowrah Kart Club

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

Delete. Self-documented. No outside publication stating notability. Appears to be WP:PR, WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the hell does WP:PR have to do with this? It certainly isn't spam. I strongly feel that this nominator, mass nominating articles, should actually read the guidelines he quotes, then it'd stop wasting our time. Jeni ^(talk) 10:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think that nom's AfD should be discarded on the ground that he's mass nominated a number of kart-related articles (the majority of which have been deleted) than Jeni's opposition should be discounted because she seems unusually interested in defending such articles. That being said, there are only a handful of hits on Google UK, and zero hits on Google News UK. This is startling; you'd think that any legitimate sporting track would at least get trivial mention in the sports pages, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Certainly fails of notability, and a complete lack of reliable sources dooms it. Ravenswing 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talladega Gran Prix Raceway

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

Delete. Notability not established. Note no affinity with NASCAR race track. Refs are all insider. None WP:RELY and neutral. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The track is notable for being one of very few road racing tracks in the southeast US, as well as it's popularity for track days and SCCA, NASA and school use. I would improve the article now, I just do not have the time. Scottanon (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as track is subject of articles in multiple reliable third-party sources, such as [51] and [52]. There's no question that the article needs improvement but that's an issue for tagging, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Matthews

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

I did a Google search on this person and I could not find ONE even remotely reliable source to establish the notability of him. The argument of my previously contested speedy was "Uhh, the guy CREATED Conky. All well and good, but if the PERSON isn't covered by any reliable sources, sorry - but inherited notability from Conky doesn't work. Furthermore, NONE of the sources currently listed in the article are third-party, or what could even be considered reliable sources. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am He Who Is Nominated for Deletion, and I would love to be erased from the internet. brenden (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Conky. He is not notable enough on his own, I didn't find any reliable sources either. Just a sentence or two in the Conky article should be good enough. --D•g ^{Talk to me}/_{What I've done} 06:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable third-party sources plus request from subject of BLP. -Atmoz (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven the Hardway

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

declined speedy. fails WP:BAND. nothing in gnews [53]. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect, did you actually read WP:BAND before nominating? This meets criteria #6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Tony MacAlpine, Virgil Donati and Mark Boals are apparently independently notable as they have wikipedia articles which have been around for several years without anybody trying to delete them. If you think they are not, please start separate AFDs for them. Yoenit (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can we even verify their existence when the only source given is a blog? and I could find nothing in gnews? it seems no one in the media seems to take any interest in this group. does WP:GNG override WP:BAND ?LibStar (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the official website of the group? Or if you think that is all fake, try the offical websites of the individual members: [54] or [55] Yoenit (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how about third party sources as per WP:RS? LibStar (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:RS would that be exactly? Primary sources like these can be used to verify something exists, they just don't do anything for notability. Yoenit (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I think some independent verification WP:V of this group in a reliable source would be a good thing. Literally anything reliable and independent. I can see the argument for WP:BAND but some minimum standards should be maintained if we are to have an article on something. Oh and yes GNG and particularly verifiability do override BAND. If we cannot even verify that three notable musicians are in the band per a reliable independent source then we really should not have a separate article on it. Jbtscott (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Jbtscott, well said. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your reasoning here? Do you believe this is all one big elaborate hoax? Or is your point that a band which fails the WP:GNG, but meets WP:BAND should not have an article? Either way, what about these [56], [57], [58]? Yoenit (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BAND and most other sub notability guidelines were simply designed to be an easy reference to quickly establish notability. Although this is often forgotten as some rush to verify notability by any avenue. I think you have probably got enough independent sources there and I would be inclined to lean towards keep. Jbtscott (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:V doesn't look like a big hurdle, WP:N will be the determining factor. With bands like this, the sources can often include tons of oddball music websites (but better looking that blogs) that I have difficulty evaluating. For this band google news led me to: [59] (Antimusic.com) and [60] (Hardrock.hu, in hungarian, has been used as a source for some articles on Hungarian wikipedia). There are other sources too, see, e.g., [61] (Guitar Jar review), [62] (Hardrockhaven.net review). [63] (Progressiveworld.net)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could take the sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. From my previous experience there I am pretty sure at least the gibson article and hardrockhaven are reliable sources for they are professional sites with an editorial staff. Between them there should be enough coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG, any other RS is a bonus. Yoenit (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources did show up under a google news search, but i've never known exactly how google picks what sources show up there vs. blogs or elsewhere. If those are reliable sources, there's enough notability for me.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep music:6 Aisha9152 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from original article author: The article has now been updated with a bunch of references. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~ no consensus as having met WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and improved per WP:HEY. Specifically, a major article in a newspaper highlights the company, and other independent sources corroborate the evidence. The AfD has been up for over seven days, and the consensus is clear for a keep. Note that no AfD tag was on the article before closing. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Electric Power Company

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

This company does not appear to have received any significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. Most of the citations do not even mention the company by name, and those that do do not establish notability per GNG or CORP. ^Bongo_matic 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite or Delete To follow up on the nom's comments, only one of the citations refers to this company by name (the footnote pointing to a site called www.tcpalm.com which appears to be an affiliate of the Scripps newspaper group). All other references only cite the fact that solar powered lights exist and are being used, and one citation that the president of the article subject is listed somewhere as the inventor of such lights. Shorter form: There's only one citation about the EXISTENCE of this company in secondary sources, much less the broader subject of notability. If multiple secondary sources regarding notability are not added, this is a clear delete. -Markeer 15:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some improvement has been made to the article, particularly several citations from green energy websites referring directly to the company. The Scripps citation is the strongest secondary source, and now we have 3 or 4 weaker references to industry sites. I've altered my non-vote to a weak keep, but I should stress that this is the bare minimum (and very borderline) research for notability. The underlying concept of WP:N is that a subject should be so evidently notable that citation flows as a natural progression, not needing a hunt for small sources. That said, while this subject appears to be very small it seems to be involved in some projects interesting enough that some note has been taken, and the demonstration of this has improved. Good improvement so far, please keep it up. -Markeer 04:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Some changes have been made and I will work on fixing the other issues today Nightflower0709 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)nightflower0709Nightflower0709 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many changes over the course of today. Please look them over and let me know if there is anything else that can be done or is required. I will continue to look for sources on the web. There are many print sources, but I am unsure how to get them online for approval. Thanks. Nightflower0709 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)nightflower0709Nightflower0709 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in gnews for this company. [64]. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News there is coverage; however, it is older. News articles are linked to the company along with other reference material. Nightflower0709 09:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the number of WP:GHITS, or lack thereof, does not make or break a subjects notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sources currently provided in the article are reliable, third-party publications about the company that demonstrate its notability. -Atmoz (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breath of Love

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

this article fails to establish notability for films. article fails WP:GNG & WP:NF. the source on the page is unreliable. Amsaim (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found some English sources: news1.ghananation.com theafricanmovies.com. The film features Ramsey Nouah, an important exponent of Nigerian film. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julianna White

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

Also included in this nomination:

Looking for input on whether former Miss New Jersey USA winners are notable enough for their own article. They all appear to fail WP:BLP1E, as their victory in this local beauty contest appears to be the only verifiably notable event in their lives. None of them went on to win Miss USA, and all of them seem to have settled down into normal, non-notable careers. A few of them have had a very minor role in a movie or TV show, but nothing that would satisfy WP:ENT or WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confess 18:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If other Miss USA state winners are allowed pages, why can't Miss New Jersey USA winners have pages? I just don't understand why all of these should be deleted, yet other state pageant titleholders pages aren't being deleted. I definitely think that they are notable enough for a page, they hold a title which makes them noteworthy and competed in a prestigious national pageant. They are well known enough and plenty of other less notable people have articles. MissAmericaGirl (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice intended to New Jersey in particular, Julianna White just happened to be the first page I stumbled upon during a new page patrol. Is there a precedent set or a previous consensus that all winners of Miss <state> USA are automatically notable? SnottyWong ^confess 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is precedent. As I said I'll pull up the previous AFDs tonight. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually accepted as a valid argument. How they pass WP:N and WP:BLP is what needs to be argued. - Pmedema (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep precedent is that Miss USA & Miss America state titleholders are notable as winners of state titles & as national representatives. Will pull up previous AFD decisions when I get home from work. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 23:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Barnas. All except nominator recommends keeping the article on the basis that state winners are notable. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Mason (keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Brown (no consensus) PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: State (as opposed to local or municipal) pageant winners in the top 2 US pageants are generally notable. Below those levels, its a different story--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Be careful if you are googling for sources on "ashley harder"!!!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per above keep sayers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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