Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 March >

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 redirect. The argument that he is notable within the context of Guitar Hero players/fans is an interesting point. Consensus in this case seems to favor the notion that he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, so the page is being redirected to Cultural impact of Guitar Hero, where it is noted that this person is already mentioned. If there is further content worth merging it can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Johnson (Guitar Hero)

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

A "world record" for a computer game isn't, in my opinion, notable. My opinion doesn't really count though. This individual does not meet the general notability guidelines due to the absence of significant coverage. Contested prod. QU ^TalkQu 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Notable for one achievement, that of world records on two video games. Are video game records sufficiently notable for WP? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sole world record, and especially one that has to do with video games, is not enough. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 23:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a sole world record, it's at least three. And a record is a record, what the record is achieved in should not make a difference. Type "danny johnson guitar hero" into Google. There's enough coverage there. Yellowman94^Talk • I am the yellow man. That's what they call me, cos that's what I am. 00:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the notable exception of the link you provided in the article I can't find any reliable sources. Typing that search term into Google gives me lots of social networks, blogs, wikis and Youtube results but they aren't reliable. I think what a record is achieved in does make a difference. For example, the marathon has been run competitively for over a century, so it is notable and holding a world record time is notable. Breaking the marathon world record would result in news articles in mainstream media across the world. In comparison a record high score in a computer game is trivial and breaking it would pass the world by in near silence. This is the acid test for inclusion because the notability guidelines require significant independent reliable coverage - and it doesn't seem to exist. QU ^TalkQu 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the Guinness World Records site for each record, as well as the New York Times, how are they not reliable sources? Yellowman94^Talk • I am the yellow man. That's what they call me, cos that's what I am. 00:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't counter WP:BLP1E. He set records in a game and that's it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So for someone to have a Wikipedia entry they have to be notable. A lot of people play Guitar Hero, so in some contexts he is very notable, and as a world record holder he is notable anyway. But then they have to be notable for more than one event. Ok: he has broken several world records in that category and his YouTube channel is the biggest Guitar Hero channel on the site. Yellowman94^Talk • I am the yellow man. That's what they call me, cos that's what I am. 12:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to this section on Cultural impact of Guitar Hero where Johnson's already mentioned. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, since he did break more than one world record. I find the merge suggested by Masem an acceptable alternative. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from the youtube reference all other references meet notability guidelines. Plus I found this MSN NBC article that also seems to be a genuine independent article. --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete obvious WP:BLP1E, holds an unimpressive record. Secret ^account 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Room (film). B music ian 14:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Danielle

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

Only sources are facebook and IMDb. Only one notable role. Last AFD resulted in keep due to many !voters saying her role in The Room was sufficient, but WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. Also, the last AFD was rife with SPAs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate s been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Last AfD, from August 2010, didn't even get one vote to delete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But still, all the !votes were assuming inherited notability, from SPAs or both. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- !vote keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.57.91 (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page cannot be deleted. Juliette Danielle is a cult lcon with THOUSANDS of fans on Facebook alone. It is like mania the hands of fate. Everyone from that movie has been forgotten about entirely. That doesn't have to happen here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.224.241 (talk • contribs)
Keep Agree with below. Juliette Danielle is notable as described in point #2 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Her cult following is evidenced in her facebook page and her appearances at screenings of The Room. --JosephPHerbert (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: below = 216.106.224.241. He placed his comment above an incorrectly placed comment by 216.106.224.241. Both comments have been placed in the correct place and order. Jarkeld (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Room--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Room (film). WP:GNG not met. Jarkeld (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle seems as notable to me as Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero do. If they've "inherited" notability from The Room, it stands to reason that the third principal actor in the film does, as well. --Simon Magnus (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseau and Sestero do not have pages because they inherited notability from "The Room". Sestero has had other roles as well and the article has several sources to back it up. Wiseau is the director as well as the main protagonist. As such he has a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Danielle doesn't. Jarkeld (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle does have a cult following, however, which is notable. --JosephPHerbert (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Room (film) until subject has more credits or can at least meet two points in the criteria from WP:ENTERTAINER. At this point, it is clear she does not. All this talk about the subject having a "cult following" is all well and good, but where are the sources supporting this cult following? Having a lot of fans or friends on Facebook does not automatically mean cult following. Also note, the subject posted for help about getting this page kept on her Facebook page [1] 24.72.176.240 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newslaundry

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

Month-old news website, doesn't appear notable per WP:WEB. Only one independent source cited, see WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and the authors that are claimed to be notable are each followed by links to their Newslaundry profiles. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 00:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Kumar Biswas

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:N. Claims of honourary degrees from Northwestern and UWO are unsubstantiated (and lists of recipients do not name him). Evalueserve web site does not list him as a co-founder or Managing Director. No references, and BLPPROD tag continually removed by author. ... discospinster _talk 21:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was the claims of honorary degrees that kept this from being a WP:CSD A7 when initially created; they're now out of the article as unsubstantiated. Then there was the Evalueserve role which, as pointed out above, doesn't seem backed up by that company's website, which gives other founder names. Unfortunately, the article creator was far more energetic in removing tags than responding to these material issues. Unless somebody comes up with something verifiable, this looks like it could indeed be an A7? AllyD (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this individual in reliable sources. I did turn up stuff about a cellist by the same name though. The claims in the article also fail the fundamental policy of verifiability; I can find no sourcing to substantiate that he co-founded Evalueserve, nor could I find sources to substantiate the claim of Chairmanship at Hind Heavy & Light Metals (can't even find a trace of the company). -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per BLP:PROD after a grace period of 10 days from the time of starting this thread. I rewarned him at level 4. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 07:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Austin suicide attack

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

As the previous dicussion notes, this does not have any lasting effects. Also, it fails WP:AIRCRASH as it is a light aircraft and nobody involved were notable. It did receive heavy news coverage, but so did the Norwegian Hercules crash (in Norway and Sweden) and Turkish army Sikorsky crash (in Turkey). This event did not cause any change in policy (which is also required per WP:AIRCRASH). Ysangkok (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous deletion discussion dismissed the AfD because of WP:SNOW. I don't see how WP:SNOW applies here and doesn't apply here. There ought to be a better reason. I don't see how there is "no chance at all" that we delete this minor freak accident article. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the existence of this discussion has been made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Notification_of_nomination_for_deletion_of_2010_Austin_suicide_attack

Keep - I think the main thing you are missing in comparing this subject to aircraft accidents currently being considered for deletion, is that this article is not about an aircraft accident, it is about an intentional criminal act, so the guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH do not apply. Instead this should be judged against WP:GNG, which this clearly passes. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG as Ahunt points out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the referencing seems to be entirely news organisations with nothing more recent than a three weeks after the event. That makes its coverage transitory rather than long-lasting, and to my mind weakens the strength of it for meeting GNG. I suspect, if retained, that a thorough working over of the article is required to refine the content, and lose some concurrent reporting slag such as the pilots biography. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The pilot's bio is essential to the article because it goes a long way to explaining his motives for flying a plane full of diesel fuel into an IRS office with the explicit intention of causing death and destruction as revenge for perceived injustices. This information goes a long way to answering the "Why did he do such a crazy thing?" question. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not his motivation but that he had siblings and a daughter by his first marriage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - a small amount of trimming to the bio is a reasonable part of the normal editing cycle over the life of an article - it's hardly relevant to AfD. The majority of the bio is relevant and on-topic. SteveBaker (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this passes WP:GNG as an act of protest (or as suicide/terrorism if you please). It probably wouldn't be notable if it were merely a light aircraft crash - but it was much more than that. There has been ongoing coverage of the event in the media. Just recently, the IRS building that was almost completely destroyed was finally re-opened - and there was significant coverage of that in the Austin media reminding people of the event. GNG requires: "Significant coverage" (check - it was in every mainstream newspaper and other media) "Reliable" (check, sources were reputable news organizations) "Sources" (check, secondary sources are provided in the articles' references) "Independent of the subject" (check, again, news items were not created by the protagonist) "Presumed" (check - we have a 'presumption' that this article is suitable for inclusion and therefore we just need a consensus, which has been established by the large number of editors working on the article and (it appears) by respondents here. SteveBaker (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N/CA, this was a crime, so criminal notability standard applies. 65.92.181.184 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm the one who nominated the Turkish and Norwegian Crashes. (Oh and I've nominated around 25 air incident articles since last Christmas) The problem I have with these incidents and quite a few others is their cases of recentism. Wikipedia is becoming a great chronicler of miniscule historical significance. I love pointing out the Kathy Whitworth to Lexi Thompson comparison. Both golfers are alive, 1 has LPGA 88 wins, the other 1 win, but who has twenty times written about her than the other? You guessed right, the one with 1 win. There's paragraphs about her playing in minor league tournaments. Lists of her minor league results. Jane Blalock made 299 straight LPGA cuts. What's minor league results in comparison?

Air incidents that are overblown because they happened recently, include the flight attendant who quit by using an emergency exit, the LOT taildragger in Warsaw last year, The Jetblue plane that circled and circled, to name a few. They got alot of intense coverage (or broken record coverage like the LOT crash. Is 1000 media outlets showing the same clip intense or repetitive like hitting your head against the wall five times a day?) than died or close to it.

There are too many editors with no sense of perspective. I'd nominate alot more articles, but I know it would be a waste of time. The LOT incident had not one person support deletion other than the nominator and me. Technically I didn't vote to delete, but only commented. The writing was already on the wall the article was going to stay....William 21:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the LOT and JetBlue incidents to this is a case of apples and carambolas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't short of disk space. So long as these articles meet broad notability criteria, there is very little cost to keeping them - and they are a valuable resource to future generations. By all means let's clean out crappy little poorly-referenced stubs of marginal notability - but this is hardly that. SteveBaker (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG Famspear (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Not an accident so the guidelines for accidents are not relevant here. That recent subjects are covered in more depth than older ones is a problem solved by improving articles on older subjects, not deleting articles on more recent ones. - Dravecky (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. The recentism "problem" comes about because there is simply less information to be had about older subjects - even if they are just as notable as modern subjects. This restriction limits the amount that we can possibly write about old subjects - which inevitably means that there will be more (and deeper) articles about modern subjects. Which is what causes recentism. It's not a "bias" - it's an inevitable fact of life when reporting on topics from before the information age. The idea that we should artificially limit what we say about terrorism events of the last 20 years in order to somehow match the depth of what we can say about terrorist incidents in the 4th century BC is ridiculous. If we adhered to that strategy then Wikipedia would contain almost nothing but historical material from centuries ago. Hence recentism is inevitable and (in a sense) desirable. The bottom line is that if someone in 20 years time is studying how people of felt about taxation - then Wikipedia should be the place where they discover the lost memory that someone once tried to wipe out an office full of people by flying a plane into it. Someone studying the effects of 9/11 can discover this as a 'copy-cat' incident. These kinds of facts are unobtainable to future researchers if we don't write about them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every fact is unobtainable to researchers if it's not written about. However, crashes like these happen multiple times per year all over the planet. In fact, they happened before 9/11 too, but people are much more sensitive to it now. Imagine reading a detailed article like this about a plane crash like this in the 60'es (information from that age isn't missing). It would feel overly detailed, no? That's why it might as well be a list item instead. No researcher will be starved of his information. Maybe a researcher looking for background information on some guy who had tax problems should look in the newspaper archives instead, they cover stuff like this much better than we do. No one cares about this article anymore, it was hardly changed in 2011 and 2012. Just like every other old news item, it has become old news, and people will be satisfied by a picture and a reference (a reference providing all those gossipy details about his letters and planes and bands and daughters and radio communication!) --Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really now? People deliberatly crash aircraft into government offices "multiple times per year all over the planet"? Reliable sources please. As for "nobody cares", see WP:WHOCARES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WHOCARES stuff was a reply to SteveBaker's WP:CRYSTALBALL argument that people in 20 years will like it. Other crash like this same year: [2]. Another crash we don't write about cause it's not American: [3] --Ysangkok (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then write them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...User:Skashifakram —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 19 March 2012‎.

It's not a poll, make an argument. --Ysangkok (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite Glrx's interesting analysis, there is no consensus that the case is not notable enough for inclusion. Sandstein 07:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plummer v. State

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

Nominating page that I created for deletion (reason: notability) as discussed at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Plummer v. State (of Indiana). Also see Rescue list: Plummer v. State --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although it needs a lot of expansion, and some simple copy-editing to clarify just who was the cop and who was shooting at whom). This case is either notable because it establishes a principle, or else (per discussion at WP:N/N) it either didn't establish a principle, but is today being widely cited as if it did. Either way, it seems that notable attention is being paid to it and WP ought to be offering a decent statement of just what it does mean. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for sure, frequently discussed court case, text it easily available, so easy to expand D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article still does not reference any reliable secondary sources and should be deleted based on lack of notability WP:Notability. I conducted my own research to try to determine notability but I did not find even one law review article mentioning the case. No one seems to have come up with a news article or book. Many cases are cited by other cases but I am told that does not create notability. Otherwise, there could be millions of articles in Wikipedia about court opinions.Coaster92 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No shortage of space in Wikipedia. Every court case that ever made it into university level textbooks should have an article, as well as those with ample coverage otherwise. Dream Focus 02:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This court case is clearly notable. Click on Google news and Google book search at the top of the AFD, and see the thousands of results that appear. Dream Focus 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this page (which I created) for deletion because I had serious doubts as to whether the thousands of search results were enough to establish notability or whether it requires things like law review articles. After carefully considering the arguments, and looking once again at the huge number of people who refer to a mangled version of this online, I am going to come down on the side of keep. I am not withdrawing my nomination; I want the AfD to run its course to give the delete/keep ratio a chance to swing the other way. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? You created it on 19 February 2012‎ and then nominated it for deletion on 17 March 2012‎, which makes no sense at all to start with. You then tag it for attention of the Article Rescue Squadron. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Plummer_v._State] And then you state you changed your mind, and don't think it should be deleted, but aren't withdrawing your deletion nomination. That doesn't make any sense at all. If you just wanted to have a chat about whether it was notable or not, get some opinions, you could've gone to the law wikiproject and started a discussion there. Dream Focus 02:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you have completely mischaracterized my position. Going from undecided to decided is not "changing your mind." I believe that my decisions were and are appropriate giving the reaction this got at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Plummer v. State (of Indiana) and then the reaction it got here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears quite historic. — Cirt (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for its notoriety -- it's cited by many litigants, for issues of self defense and unlawful arrest to resisting arrest. Cleanup is needed. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clicking on Google news and books turns up no news articles or books that I saw, only other court cases. On the article talk page, Girx and Fladrif questioned whether these are reliable sources here and I haven't yet found a Wiki policy about using court cases as reliable secondary sources. One thing for sure, if an editor is going to use court cases as sources, he/she will very likely have to analyze the cases and essentially create original research in order to advance the position of the article. The cases are not like news articles or books.Coaster92 (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. The AfD attack is WP:N.

The Google scholar search finds many different Plummer v State court cases, but the hit counts are misleading. There are two cases with that name in Indiana (ours plus one other), one in Nevada, and one in GA. Citations to the 1893 Indiana case only appear to be in other court opinions, a terse mention in ALR, and the AG of Wyoming making a mere citation (i.e., no explanatory text) in his annotated Wyoming statutes of 1910. Maybe another AG taking notice of the case shows WP:N, but that seems thin. In addition, I think some of the legal citations to Plummer support the alternate fact pattern: a peace officer can escalate force in a lawful arrest.

Although it is an entertaining case, it appears to have a limited impact on society. (Compare Kolender v. Lawson overturning law against loitering.) My memory is hazy, but I think the fact pattern is something like this: the town was going to do something to Plummer's property, so he decided to track down the town council members and threaten them with a gun. His exploits met with some success. He was told the town would not act, so he started walking home while still carrying his gun. His protest was over for the day. He wasn't trespassing. He wasn't threatening anyone anymore. A quirk of Indiana law is that drawing a gun is a misdemeanor, but just carrying a gun in one's hand is not. The peace officer did not see the gun being drawn. A peace officer without a warrant and (through the peculiar nature of Indiana law) without probable cause and without following normal arrest procedures, struck Plummer from behind, knocked the gun away, and then started shooting at Plummer. Plummer regained his weapon and killed the officer. Plummer was convicted, but on top of all the other confusion, some bad jury instructions were issued. The Indiana Supreme Court overturned his conviction.

The case does not say anything particularly astounding. It's still good law, but it is narrow law. It's a poor case for illustrating the limits of resisting arrest because Plummer's protest was over, he was on his way home, and there was no probable cause for arrest. The issue of the level of force that may be used in a lawful arrest is also clouded by the arrest being unlawful. John Bad Elk v U.S. has a similar probable cause problem (but it is mentioned at the Self-defense (United States) article). How many protesters are walking around with a drawn gun in a state where that is legal? Even without any of the quirky legal and murky factual issues, Plummer's conviction would have been overturned on the bad jury instruction. The case is a good story because it is so far out the norm, but it is fundamentally a story about a citizen (1) behaving badly, (2) killing a law enforcement officer who tried to disarm a crazy person carrying a gun, and (3) possibly getting off without any punishment.

At this point in time, we can write a synopsis of the case from the actual opinion but little else. If we are lucky, there might be some secondary source articles covering the case in some 1897 Indiana newspapers. Right now, I don't know of any conventional secondary sources telling us that this case is important or had a significant impact on the public at large.

Consequently, I don't see a clear path to WP:N yet. I'm not following the law project, so there might be other methods of determining notability for cases. High schools, for example, are considered inherently notable. It may be that state supreme court decisions are inherently notable, but WP:Notability (law) is a failed proposal. This case would have met WP:CASES under that proposal because it is an opinion of the highest court in Indiana. That proposal did not see much support.

I haven't Shepardized the opinion, but IIRC, another editor claims it has about 30 citations in other cases. Maybe that confers notability, but I'm ignorant on any such debate.

Failing WP:N, the case might be mentioned in the resisting arrest article.

Glrx (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana law is also different today: citizens may not resist a peaceful but unlawful arrest:

At common law, a person was privileged to resist an unlawful arrest. See Gross v. State, 186 Ind. 581, 583, 117 N.E. 562, 564 (1917). Our courts, however, have uniformly accepted that this common law rule is outmoded in today's modern society. See Fields v. State, 178 Ind. App. 350, 355, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975 (1978) (holding that a private citizen may not use force or resist a peaceful arrest by one he knows or has good reason to believe is an authorized officer performing his duties, regardless of whether the arrest is legal or illegal); accord Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied; Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. In 1976, the Legislature, recognizing this modern trend, enacted the resisting law enforcement statute, Indiana Code section 35-44-3-3, which makes it a crime to “(1) forcibly resist[], obstruct[], or interfere[] with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer‟s duties[.]” Additionally, Indiana Code section 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(B), makes battery, if committed upon a law enforcement officer, a Class A misdemeanor. Id. (“A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is[] (1) a Class A misdemeanor if . . . (B) it is committed against a law enforcement officer . . . .”).

Indiana v Ricardson (Indiana Supreme Court 2010) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06031001fsj.pdf at 7:

Plummer is still good for a violent arrest, but that application is narrow. Glrx (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The suggestion that decided cases cannot be reliable sources appears to me to be untenable. James500 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delelte. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gérard Gertoux

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

French autor, clearly unknown in his country and in the french WP. His books are published as author's account. In fact, i suppose that it is a self publicity article.--Cchasson (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any notability elements for PROF or AUTHOR in article or search. Google scholar shows citations of 4 and 3 which is very low. In addition, no newspaper or magazine mention from a google search... Tradedia (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on news. No reviews of work. No in-depth coverage. Tigerboy1966 19:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McLaughlin

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

Article about an individual who is not notable outside of his work within a famous person's Foundation. Some COI/AUTOBIO editing has taken place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found only one indepth coverage in a secondary source already used in the article ([4]). Everything else are dentists, scientists, etc.Curb Chain (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Balazs

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

All sources appear to be primary sources, and I cannot find anything that meets WP:RS or indicates if notability as an academic is met (as I am unsure if her organization is in itself notable). No evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Any coverage I find about "Anna Balazs" are about the completely unrelated professor of engineering of the same name at the University of Pittsburgh. Possibly part of a walled garden related to the article Henriett Seth F. (see the deletion discussion of said article). Kinu ^t/_c 04:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article presents no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any other notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything on this Anna Balazs. Tigerboy1966 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I could not find any significant coverage of this individual -- only a few mentions of the name -- but nothing to fulfill our criteria for biography or notability. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In view of limited participation, this is a SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request, though it may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Kandarian

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

Issues with notability and lack of references for almost 2 years. I've searched online for reliable coverage about Kandarian, under her birth name and her DJ names, without much success. I search for reviews of her film, without success. The majority of the article seems unverifiable and subject doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It looks like she won an award, but I'm not exactly sure how notable that award actually is. I can't find all that many sources to show that the New Zealand 48-Hour Short Film Festival is a big and notable award enough to have her pass WP:ACADEMIC (since the article mentioned she taught a few classes at a film school) and I don't see where her contributions outside of school have made that big of an impact either, since there's so very few sources out there about her. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaohui Fan

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

Is this professor sufficiently notable? Nothing in the article indicates that he is. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG e.g. this Popular Science article, and finding the oldest thing ever seen in the universe and spawning these New York Times and BBC articles amongst others has to count for something. Also, perhaps the Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" per WP:PROF? --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could not the nominator have taken a took at the stupendous cites on Google Scholar, which are only one click away? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. Failure of WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lili Wang

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

There was a 2004 nomination that was never closed correctly. I do not think this crime victim is sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This murder/suicide appears to have gotten only temporary local coverage. Although the incident was tragic, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BLP1E. While this is a tragic event, the subject was only known for this event. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.O.Y.B.L (Melody Thornton mixtape)

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

I don't see any indication that this just-released independent mixtape is notable. Perhaps the information could be merged into the Melody Thornton article. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 17:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There aren't no reason for this deletion. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, there are: WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only major sources I found in a Google search is Rap Up, which isn't at all considered an reliable source and StupidDope which is a better source that I do consider reliable in areas (and I'm kinda surprised that source isn't used as much here in WP as it's one of the biggest Hip Hop Culture websites and mostly written by real journalists), but this [5] I don't consider as "significant coverage". Secret ^account 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Takeuchi

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google News search gets zero results using her anglicized name. Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There might be more hits under 竹内実生, as she's predominantly known in Japan moreso than in the USA.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never before tried a Google News search using Chinese characters, but I now have. Only hit I got was [6], which, based on a Google translation, doesn't seem to have anything to do with Mio Takeuchi. I might also add that just the material in the WP article doesn't establish notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage to verify notability and justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Light Turns Green

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

Faiils WP:GNG. A Google News search reveals that it is known only in Milwaukee as a film made in Milwaukee. Film article was created by film maker - only edits he's done at Wikipedia. Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NF. Yup... on February 11, 2006, User:Johnbolger (same name as film's director) created the article as his only life edits.[7] Since that time, enough other edits have been made by others so that his WP:COI is realy not a serious issue.[8] And of course... 6 years ago, concerns with sourcing and notability were certainly not as big an issue as they are today. That said, and in agreement with the nominator, this film is found only in mirrors and non-RS websites... no suitable coverage found in news archives[9] or books.[10] It DID make its screen debut on April 13, 2000,[11] but since then it seems to have received no media attention. IF it is determined that filmmaker John M. Bolger (II) [12] is the same person as actor John Michael Bolger (I) [13] (who apparently has spent time in Wisconson) it might merit a mention in the Bolger article... otherwise, buh-bye. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - IMDB has a movie listed but rotten tomatoes doesn't (strange!). Nothing after that, no Google search results. --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formula SimRacing

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see anything particularly notable. It was deleted once before for lack of notability. Readro (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N AND WP:OR JayJay^{Talk to me} 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found a Gamespot.com article here. A PC World article mentions it in passing. --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first link returns a 404 - Page Not Found error and the second link has no mention of Formula SimRacing. Readro (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange I just copied and pasted links from browser. Taking back my vote --Wikishagnik (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southtree

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

this is clearly a business, and there doesn't seem to be anything extraordinary about it. Less than one percent of all businesses are influential enough to need there own wikipedia page, and i see no reason why this is one of them. Joshzz42 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small local firm, 10 years old, nothing to suggest notability. Google News finds nothing at all from Reliable Sources - just a couple of items in a hyperlocal news blog. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing apart from Facebook and twitter (and YouTube). --Wikishagnik (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southtree

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Topic meets WP:GNG. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kara_Young

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kara Young

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

This model has always been a quiet, lowkey, private one and hasn't done much over the years to have an entire page. Reports and documented articles about her have been minor over the decades, with absolutely none in the news now. She should be listed in the Sports Illustrated section as a model, but other than that, her life is really a lowkey one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara_Young KYNY (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)— KYNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This editor has made NO edits outside of this article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, notability is only borderline and sources mention her in passing only. Stifle (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep . I believe this is a bad faith nomination. The editor who submitted this has an issue with one item in the article and has attempted to own the entire article. In any case Keith has made some excellent edits to this article and it warrants keeping.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This person is so private, was never as famous as her colleagues during the time she modeled (Cindy Crawford, Linda Evangelista, Naomi Campbell, etc, etc) never had a notable career beyond a few photo shoots, and is now a regular citizen, owning a hair shop like millions of other people, but they don't have a biography about them on this site. It's silly to keep her. JohnJaySee (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)— JohnJaySee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of nominator, see SPI. Amalthea 13:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made few edits outside of this article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: ~~Delete~~ , Or definitely delete the personal section. No former model this private and lowkey should have an article. Not every model is on here and not every model wants to be, especially mentionings of their husband and children. KYNY (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)— KYNY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your nomination implies a delete "vote", please don't cast another. Also, are you connected with Ms. Young? Stifle (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have today added multiple reliable sources including Ebony, LA Times, NY Times, NY Post, Black Women in America. She was a prominent, A-list fashion model in the late 80's and early 90's and appeared on the covers of multiple major fashion magazines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article is being Streeeetched with the same trivial information, which is still very little. Person's unimportant and not very notable, especially considering the fact that she was somewhat recognizable back in the 1980s. No one knows who she is now because she was always just an average citizen who happened to model. BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)— BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: User:BlahBlaahBlaaah was blocked indefinitely as a sock account of User:KYNY--Cavarrone (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has made NO edits outside of this article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wow, Fasttimes seems to have a very bizarre personal interest in this page. I say bizarre because he doesn't even know her.~~ BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)— BlahBlaahBlaaah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reminder to please stick to discussion of content and avoid personal commentary on editor behavior. Thanks :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This story about a girl who had a few good modeling jobs is really no news. Also, she's done nothing really important. I'm off to view Cindy Crawford's page and Naomi Campbell's, because they were actual supermodels way back then. Q1Q2QThree (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)— Q1Q2QThree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: User:Q1Q2QThree was blocked indefinitely as a sock account of User:KYNY--Cavarrone (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet minimum requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ENT#1. Cavarrone (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her story is unimportant and rather insulting. She modeled in a few magazines, got "arrested" and her husband comes across as egotistical. To top it off, now she is "retired" which makes her sound so old, yet she works in a hair place, which sounds really simple and a large drop from being a supermodel. Not flattering at all and neither is her picture. Most importantly, the biography is really dull and nothing worth reading. Weakfoot (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)— Weakfoot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've stricken this comment because it was made by a straightforward sockpuppet of a blocked user. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Is it not obvious that the subject or someone closely affiliated to her is interested in deletion? Perhaps they will admit as such now, and tell us what their particular concern is. Some privacy as to personal information may be appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how you drew that conclusion, but I disagree this is the subject or a close associate. It is more likely a sad case of wiki jealously by a lesser known and regarded colleague. In any case, I see NOTHING contentious in this BLP. If the subject wishes information removed, then she could contact OTRS and solve this mystery by providing verification of that she is the subject, and provide information on the offending text, or even bring it up in a rationale matter in the talk page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Milowent and I respect the privacy of the subjects of BLP's that's why I removed personal info about KY's children. Its off topic and not fair to those are who not notable and not public figures. However, if KYNY is the subject, they should go to BLPN or to OTRS. Deleting sourced content, creating socks and nominating for deletion is not helpful.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. Konrath

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

Completing nomination for anonymous editor. Their rationale was "Yes, so instead of reverting why don't you do it? This is just an ad probably written by Konrath - zero reason to exist." On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's not exactly a nobody and is actually a pretty vocal contributor to many different sites. Galleycat and MediaBistro blog about him on an almost semi-daily basis. I've cleaned up a lot of the stuff in the article, sourced a lot of stuff, and I believe that it now passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources now in the article - including a significant mention in USA Today and a book review by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer - convince me he is notable. Good work, Tokyogirl. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to favor the notion that this incident is not notable enough for a stand alone article. Will be happy to userfy if anyone wishes to use it as the basis for additions to a related existing article or list. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish army Sikorsky crash

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody notable on board which is a criteria for military crashes. WP:NOTNEWS also applies

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC) ...William 13:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, a military accident or incident in a combat zone is rarely notable. Military accidents are far more common than in civvy street so it would take something exceptional to raise this from an entry in List of aviation accidents and incidents in the War in Afghanistan to a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only is this one of the more deadly helicopter accidents during the Afghan war, it is also the largest loss of life for the Turkish Army during the war and so far the deadliest aviation accident this year. Michael5046 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deadliest incident so far, but - WP:CRYSTAL aside - unlikely to remain so - and fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If it remains the deadliest crash and shows WP:PERSISTENCE no prejustice against recreation. Note that if kept must be renamed, current title is horribly ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Worldwide noticed. Clearly longterm. Support rename. Tagremover (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Nimrod crash has 14 fatalities too. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Besides the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, they are hugely and fundamentely different. That crash was the direct cause of major controversy about servicitibility of the whole fleet, a commision to examine said servicibility and a lawsuit against an MP because of the crash (all three things which were heavily covered by the media). This has none of that. Ravendrop 21:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Crashes of military aircraft in combat zones are rarely notable. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fails AIRCRASH & NOTNEWS but may pass GNG. That being said as this is an article about an event, article does not yet appear to pass WP:EFFECT. Right now it may fall under WP:TOOSOON and might be best to place the article into incubation, and if it has been found not to pass AIRCRASH, EFFECT, or GNG in the future it can be moved back into the articlespace. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This crash is not an encyclopedic event. Esc2003 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note although this discussion is still open the article has been moved to the ambigious 2012 Sikorsky helicopter crash by User:Undescribed. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael5046. Also: WP:GNG requires: "Significant coverage" (check - it was in every mainstream newspaper and other media, all over the world) "Reliable" (check, sources are reputable news organizations) "Sources" (check, secondary sources are provided in the articles' references) "Independent of the subject" (check, again, news items were not fabricated). --Ysangkok (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Newspaper coverage is routine. Thousands of media outlets carry wire service stories all the time. Most of them are not notable....William 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Sikorsky H-60 or its corresponding list of accidents / incidents as this is not notable enough to justify a solo articlePetebutt (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seventeen fatalities and the worst Turkish loss of life thus far in Afghanistan. Clearly notable. May well not be exceeded, and if it is, so what? -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - military aircraft crash far more regularly than civil aircraft and in particularly flying in a combat zone is not particularly safe and so accidents and incidents are mainly not notable which is why military accidents have a far higher notability threshold. Sad that soldiers were killed but it is an operational combat zone and this sort of thing happens but it doesnt justify a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With the death toll now at 17 from this disaster, it has the second highest fatality number in aviation crashes out of the current 11-year War in Afghanistan. It has been covered by all the major news outlets worldwide and is Turkey's largest loss of life in the War in Afghanistan. John Cengiz talk 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry its sad but people die in war but it doesnt make it notable its the nature of warfare, and this is an encyclopedia not a death score card. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep second deadliest single incident in Afghanistan from any country is a claim of notability, seems like it passes WP:GNG. Renominate later if needed. Secret ^account 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- second deadliest single incident in Afghanistan from any country is a claim of notability - no, only the deadliest one is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a 10 year, highly publicized war that many countries are involved, it is a valid claim or notability unlike most we see on Wikipedia. Secret ^account 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the longer the war and more entities involved, it becomes less of a claim of notability simply because there's more likely to have been more crashes. However, either way, this is what lists are for, not stand-alone articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Indo-European language

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

Intro paragraph says it all: "a proposed international auxiliary language [...] presented by two undergraduate students [...] in 2006. Apart from the two students who invented it, it has no support from any scholars or public officials, has never been used by anyone, and has never been referenced by a reliable source". This is essentially still a correct summary of the state of affairs. This article has existed for six years and no reliable sources providing any amount of testable notability to it have ever been added. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "never been referenced by a reliable source" is false, although the rest may be true. -- 202.124.75.170 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The intro paragraph "says it all" because of this edit that was made to the lede 3 years after the article was created. Why Rjensen didn't just nominate it for deletion I don't know. It may indeed be deletable but I would still recommend doing the standard homework. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think I didn't? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I should have worded it differently. I meant "doing the standard homework if you haven't already". With such an obvious target painted on it, it would be tempting to skip that step even if one is a "careful" nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Modern Indo-European language" is interesting in a way, but also kind of stupid, and a remarkable amount of subsidiary Wikipedia nonsense (on other articles) seems to have been based around other people's interpretation of it. I would say that if there are no reliable sources or usable references, then at this point the article does not deserve any extra chances or special treatment, and should be dealt with according to the strict letter of Wikipedia policies... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or selective merge into Proto-Indo-European language. The project has produced several editions of a rather substantial grammar (about 800 pages). This book seems to have a half dozen or so citations (e.g. here and here). Thin, but not an obvious deletion. One of the students involved, btw, was a doctoral student, not an undergraduate, as the edit to the lede suggested. -- 202.124.75.170 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That "rather substantial grammar" is cobbled together from Wikipedia articles. It's a self-published work and utterly unreliable. The reference to it you cite [14] is a single passing mention in a footnote (p.970). All other references to this work I've seen are in fact unrelated to its actual topic: non-expert authors erroneously use this "grammar" as a handy online reference for ancient proto-IE or its historical daughter languages. I can't remember seeing any other reference to it that reflected a real interest in its nominal topic, i.e. the reconstruction/revitalization project as such. This also goes for the second ref you cite ([15]) Sad to see a PhD student at a serious university can get away with quoting this work in a dissertation. But whatever that reference is, it is not a substantial discussion of the topic of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their grammar is "substantial." That's not the same as "correct," as this PIE scholar points out. The citations indicate it's marginally notable, (although some citations may, as you point out, reflect a misunderstanding of what the book is). Not a clear delete IMHO, but certainly very, very borderline. Probably deserving of a few lines in the PIE article (if only to save other people from confusion). What's your basis, btw, for asserting that their grammar is "cobbled together from Wikipedia articles"? -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A reference in a scholar's blog lampooning the project as inherently ridiculous is hardly a good basis for a notability claim either. About the copying, check out the chapter on Messapic, just as one example. Or search for "Grammar of modern Indo-European" on Wikipedia talkpages. You'll find about a dozen talk threads where Wikipedia editors were shocked to find that our articles were apparently plagiarized from Quiles. In reality, if you check the article histories, in every single case the text was developed in Wikipedia earlier than Quiles' publication. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly nonnotable conlang. Do not merge anything into Proto-Indo-European language; that would be as inappropriate as merging Latino sine flexione or whatever it's called into Latin language. "Modern Indo-European" is something someone made up one day and has nothing to do with actual reconstructed PIE. Angr (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely non-notable, sourced solely to a self-published book etc, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angr. I thought we were cracking down on MADEUP articles. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I also agree with what Angr said about merging - the content here has no place in any articles about Proto-Indo-Europeans.Hermione is a dude (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - classic made-up-one-day material, should have been dumped long ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calfix

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

Article was speedily deleted via CSD under the criterion A7. The article was recreated with no comment on why. I can't find any indication of notability or significant coverage. I'm taking it to AfD to decide. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 12:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I restored the talk page, since there was a smidgen of discussion there. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Don't delete I have no connection with the subject of either Reid Jackson or Calfix, but rather a connection with one of the media outlets that has been talking about him (Social Tech Pop- you can Google us, we're not just some obscure blogger). I believe this to be an interesting story and thought that it belongs on Wikipedia. Delete both articles if you want, I think they are significant and have had more than enough press coverage to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The contributing editor has shown that he's more than willing to continue re-creating the article. I hate to bite the newbie, but this guy has been warned about his behavior and doesn't seem to want to listen. Considering that all of his edits have been to add Calfix or Reid Jackson related articles/edits to Wikipedia, it's fairly clear that this is a promotional account.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no indications of notability, nothing but continued attempts to add spam/promotional content. We should nuke it from orbit to be sure. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The editor continues to ignore all feedback and spam promotional content on his related interests. The company/website is a non-notable one created by a teen who appears to be attempting to promote it using wikipedia without any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete- This website has over 100,000 users. It is clearly relevant and belongs on Wikipedia. Someone should expand on it, not delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - SPA !votes on here appear to be related per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnlowenstein. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - fine, delete it all. It has masses of press over here, and you guys will be missing an important page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't mean this to come out as rude, but if the company and person are the focus of a lot of press then you need to put that in the article. Just be aware that anything that is released from the company or anyone affiliated with it (such as a press release) is not seen as anything other than a primary source and cannot show notability. Also, the coverage must be in depth and must focus on the company. If it's more about famous relatives/parents of the person who runs the company or is only a brief mention, then it's only considered a trivial source and cannot show notability. Blogs cannot show notability unless they're by an absolute authority or notable person. As far as the number of users go, it doesn't matter how many users are on it. That sort of thing is irrelevant. It makes it more likely to get publicity, but that in itself doesn't show notability. Neither does the fact that the person running the company is related to someone seen as notable on Wikipedia, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Just be aware that you get more help by asking nicely for help and supplying sources on the articles' talk pages than you do stomping your feet and saying "so there!" Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotbox Events

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

Seems to be a non-notable events company that does not meet the notability criteria of WP:NCORP. Article is cited to the websites of business partners and a press release. I cannot find any substantial, independent, reliable coverage online. Sionk (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This doesn't strike me as even a close question. WP:SNOW may apply here. Terence7 (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete: I have not conducted an extensive search for sources, but there are no relevant Google Books or News hits. It strikes me as non-notable. If an extensive search turns up fruitless, I'll strengthen my opinion. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage to meet notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Israeli Urbanism

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

Non-notable, their website only uses their own archived versions of external articles as sources, therefore unverifiable. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But wait, I can hear you saying, surely the consensus is to just flat-out keep it? If this were a vote, even with all the sockpuppets and possibly canvassed votes, sure, it would be a slam-dunk keeper. But this is not a vote, and the vast majority of those commenting in the "keep" camp have failed, as is noting in the relisting statement, to present a valid argument with a solid basis in WP policy. Linking to a policy and saying "this meets (or does not meet) the following policy" without explaining why is not helpful. I would add that Wikipedia does not, has not, and will not require users to have a personal interest in a subject before they are allowed to discuss it or edit it, in fact it is pretty much the opposite. Persons without a personal interest are far more likely to be able to view a subject objectively and apply policy evenly.The most reasonable suggestion I see here is the one that says to merge all these events into an omnibus article, and it's disappointing to see the lack of response to this eminently reasonable idea that would allow preservation of content while alleviating the concerns about the notability of the individual events. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 140

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT, the only source older than than 24 hrs after the event is an unofficial source of Pay-per-view stats, there is no coverage for this event outside the specialist MMA publications and what there is from those publications is just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Mt king ^(edits) 08:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT due to coverage in such non-MMA specific publications as USA Today. Massive number of sources in multiple languages exist for this notable event. Lazy, if not dishonest nomination. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet - striking comments per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, so which sources demonstrates the historical significance of this event then ? Mt king ^(edits) 20:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating a fact is not a personal attack. If you do not think this topic is notable or non-routine, then you are ignorant of the subject matter. I am ignorant about how some chemical things work. So if I started spouting off jibberish about chemistry, it would not be a personal attack for someone to accurately call me out on that. As far as "lazy" goes, well, come on, do you really, really expect anyone to believe that you looked for sources per WP:BEFORE? The amount available is overwhelming to the point that is flat out insulting to demand anyone else have to show them to you. If you seriously cannot see the sources for yourself by just doing a Google search, then you should not even be asking that question... I should not have to try to persuade what I suspect is at least a teenager that World War II occurred by enumerating source after source when that same person should be able to type n two words and see them all come up. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even MMA's own notability guideline WP:MMANOT. Mt king ^(edits) 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, this article is notable. The Lightheavweight CHAMPIONSHOP of THE BIGGEST PROMOTION IN THE WORLD!! was defended in a televised card featuring fighters who appear in video games, on cards, etc. One of the all time greats and almost assuredly future hall of famers Tito Ortiz competed. Former champions competed. This card is historically significant by any rationale stretch of the imagination. [16]. The event is still be discussed in news reports from Canada to the beyond. From YahooSports to USA Today. A televised card from THE promotion with a championship fight and at least four former or current champions on the card just cannot be so flippantly and insulting dismissed as subjectively not notable. I mean,comeon!>?--63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately misleading ? WP:MMANOT#Individual Events says Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". (my bold and underline) so there you have it. Mt king ^(edits) 23:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus. Individual events are indeed considered notable when they concern the Lightheavyweight Championship of the most notable promotion in the world when hundreds of thousands of dollars are on the line and when an audience of millions at home around the world watch the event. The coverage in Brazil, America, Canada, etc. is not "routine", but exceptional. A championship fight is to MMA what a Superbowl is to football. Plus, yeah, it really is better for the world that this article be redlinked and instead we have a discussion about it for people to read, yeah, that's reallll helpful....--63.3.19.130 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe any and all UFC events are inherently notable and that many UFC events do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For now I am going to refrain from !voting on this AfD because I'm on the fence. I will say, that the article in its current state does fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as the article consists mostly (if not nearly entirely) of a collection of results and 'statistics'. WP:SPORTSEVENT says, "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose", which this article doesn't have much of; even the background section is really just a list of facts about the event in sentence form.

WP:EVENT provides additional guidelines which the article, in its current form, does not comply with. Specifically, the article does not show that is of of lasting significance; rather it makes it seem like an MMA event was held, big whoop, there's another in less than three weeks (UFC took a break for Christmas). The article makes no attempt to explain why this event will be important five months from now, let alone five years from now. It also does not show a diversity in sources as all cited sources are from MMA news websites; notable UFC event articles should be able to cite sources from more mainstream media (USA Today, Sports Illustrated/CNN, etc).

Can the UFC 140 Wikipedia article fulfill these guidelines and prove that it is a notable event? It's possible, particularly with it having had a world championship bout on the card. However, in it's current state, it appears it may not fully meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article merely reports the fight results, therefore it fails to pass WP:EVENT or WP:ROUTINE. Sadly, that seems to be true of virtually every MMA event article. As long as the articles consist primarily of fight results, I believe they will continue to not meet the notability criteria. As far as having notable fighters goes, previous discussions at WT:MMA have said that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, you need to actually read the article before commenting. It has sections on critical reception, DVD release, firsts associated with the event, etc. Your claim that it is just results it baltantly false and anyone who actually reads the article can see that. So, did you just boilerplate comment to delete as you seem to do for all MMA events or are you just flatout lying? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why don't we also nominated Super Bowl XLVI for deletion?(Justinsane15 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Ha! Don't give 'em ideas, because those saying to delete here probably will take you up on that! :) --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:TreyGeek, who correctly notes that the article has potential. At first I thought April Fool's Day came early when I read this nomination, but in any event, this article can and should be improved, but is unquestionably a notable, historic, and widely covered event with longterm ramifications for the sport. I am especially appalled by the apparent lack of effort on the nominator's part to either find sources or to falsely claim they don't exist. The nomination inaccurately asserts that coverage only exists in specialist MMA sources. this newspaper is NOT an MMA-only rag by any stretch. And nor is Sports Illustrtated. The whole nomination paragraph is demonstrably false, because my source for searches included looking at those actually cited in the article, which does more than just list the results mind you, includes such well-known national media outlets as USA Today, Sports Illustrated, and various other non-MMA specific publications. I do not speak Portuguese, but I would be hardpressed to believe that given Nogueria and Machida's participation that Brazilian media hasn't also covered this event at some length. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Note: The Bachmann Editor Overdrive has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts Block Log.[reply]
Keep if you delete this one, then you would have to delete every other MMA event. c.m1994 (wtf is this $#*!?) 00:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SENSE. It concerns a major televised event from the world's most important MMA promotion with major fighters, including a title fight, and was covered in the mainstream press as pointed out above. Moreover, another editor has made considerable improvements to the article since nomination, which could and have should have been done instead of nomination per WP:BEFORE. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]

Keep as par WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:SENSE and for the clear fact that the nominator is fighting an already lost war against any MMA event on here. He's been claiming that any MMA event on here is just WP:ROUTINE and that because of this, they should all go (and has tried so many times from looking at past AfD cases). Well clearly not, because consensus says that UFC events meets more policies than it fails which gives them the right to remain on here. And because of this if any other major promotion has event pages also, as long as they receive a similar amount of coverage, then they can also remain on here. Like I said, its consensus that agrees to keeping these pages, if anyone disagrees with this, you are in your rights to vote against it, but if you start openly questioning the people who vote 'KEEP' in any AfD debate that is swaying for the overall majority vote to Keep the page/s, then maybe it would be for the best to avoid the topic altogether. Better out of it than given yourself heart strain over simple pages which are easier kept than destroyed. BigzMMA (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as frivolous nom by a suspected sock account. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 172.130.252.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for lack of available sourcing that is both reliable and independent. Not everything a notable organization does is notable, and not every sport event is notable, particularly if only sports related sites and forums are talking about it. These keep coming out of the woodwork, we need to likely make one giant AFD and open it to a larger discussion. I'm sure that would be civil. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be sure to actually read the articles under discussions and to comment on them honestly. The event is covered by Sports Illustrated and USA Today, which are reliable independent sources cited in the actual article... Thank god these Afds are not just votes! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I combed over it better. Most of the refs are not WP:RS, but the one Sports Illustrated article is rock solid and the exact type needed to demonstrate notability. (I did miss that one last time, in a sea of less than reliable links, but this was still my mistake.) It is the only one, however, there is enough coverage from the other weak sources that it is very possible that it passes the criteria, at least in spirit. I struck my !vote. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (removed my own involvement here due to sock Dennis Brown (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you for being reasonable. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Personal attacks on nominator. Ad hominem arguments by almost all of the keep !voters. On the face of it, the sources provided have either not been reliable or contained significant mention. Relisting to allow more valid comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2011 in UFC events as per recent suggestion by the closing admin of a similar AfD and a discussion started at the MMA WikiProject here. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, I agree that this is the best place, DGG was absolutely correct in his close of the other AFD. It will allow putting in the entries that aren't notable enough for their own article, and will consolidate the information in one place making it much more usable and useful for the reader. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that *sometimes* there are some matches that might qualify for a separate article, when they are covered by real independent sources, but these are quite rare, as the rash of AFD is teaching us. Even then, a consolidated article for all them is better, and still allows for the occasional "really notable" event and article in addition to. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as separate, because this one concerns a championship fight and so is not really the same as a random Fight Night. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.1) has already !voted on this AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to meet all of the criteria for a wikipedia article. It includes multiple independent sources, contains more than just results, contains a good bit of prose, and featured a title-fight by a fighter widely regarded as being one of the world's top ten mixed martial arts currently competing in ANY weight class (Jon Jones, a so-called pound-for-pound champ). The event had historical significance because it capped what many journalist regarded as one of the single best years in MMA history by a single fighter(victories over multiple former champions). I see no problems with its notability. If other editors feel that this article requires additional prose, they can certainly add it. AfD is not the correct process for handling articles that editors feel need additional writing. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article details an event wherein a title fight (in the promotion's marquee division no less) is the main event. Implicating that the event is not notable would be... not forward thinking, because it certainly is notable, [as] [shown] [by] the coverage of the event. This coverage has not been mentioned in the article. I believe this article is in need of a [Cleanup], maybe even refimprove. Teamsleep (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is VERY notable, a UFC title was defended at it. Why this was nominated for deletion is crazy to me! Glock17gen4 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know I've been asking myself the same question for a while now, my best guess is that a fair number of these people don't event follow MMA. Dennis Brown admitted on the BAMMA 9 AfD that he has no care for the subject, and that reason he participates in MMA subjects here is purely to see if they meet the policies relating to them, hardly a reason in my books, you must have some understanding of the subject if you are to take part in it. BigzMMA (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What I do know and understand are the guidelines. You don't have to be an expert at "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to actually read and understand the policies. Often, someone who is not emotionally invested in a topic area is better capable of giving an objective opinion as to the quality of sources and whether notability of a subject is at all verifiable. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, common sense has to kick in when talking about removing an MMA event belonging to the biggest MMA promotion in the world, it doesn't matter about the policies, if its branded with the 'UFC' logo, then it has a clear case to why it belongs here. You say that being emotionally involved in the subject is not good, but neither is being emotionally involved in the policies of Wikipedia. Just because you may understand based on these policies what is a good page and what isn't doesn't mean to say that it can take down any pages belonging to a brand like the UFC, because what your trying to say then is that your taking on the UFC. Even though the UFC are not here to defend themselves, the people who watch their product and like the sport will look into policies and find the ones that will defend the UFC, and there are a lot of UFC fans on Wikipedia. This is why your fighting a lost battle here. You can't beat this without a good understanding why the UFC is so big, why it is so popular and how fast it is growing. BigzMMA (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INHERITED. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to fall under WP:MMAEVENT because UFC 140 is still mentioned by sources independent of MMA. Sportsnet reports that due to the good business of this event Toronto will become a regular stop for the UFC [[17]]. Also, the Vancouver Sun referred to the event as the debut of an upcoming Canadian fighter [[18]]. Both of these articles were posted in the last 24 hours, and I believe they demonstrate the lasting effects of an event that occurred on December 10th, 2011. --Pat (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those articles do not demonstrate the lasting significance of this event, they are about the the next event. Mt king ^(edits) 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete this article whatsoever, anyone who thinks this event isnt notable knows nothing about MMA or Jon Jones. This is the same event where Big Nog was 1st submitted and the same event where Mark Hominick was KO'd in 7 seconds. It was also the 1st time Lyoto Machida was submitted. So yea, KEEP! JadeSnake (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the article doesn't discuss any of these issues. They could be valid points in terms of showing WP:EFFECT and/or the significance of the event. However, they are not mentioned in the article. Adding this material is on my to-do list, but it may take time for me to complete this article (let alone do it for all 100-200 UFC event articles), so feel free to add "well sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People are really trying to nominate this event for deletion? This event is incredibly notable, features 5 current or former UFC champions, a UFC title fight, a UFC record, and had 2 of the biggest moments in recent MMA history. Whoever nominated this for deletion needs to do a little research before nominating pages that they have no knowledge of. This is getting ridiculous... way too many ignorant people with way too much time on their hands trying to ruin MMA on wiki.BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
Comment Not a single editor advocating keeping this has addressed the lack of coverage after the event that is not routine in nature, the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy is clear on the fact that when it says " most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". Mt king ^(edits) 03:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close AfD case now Can an admin please just close this AfD, this case has been going on for weeks now and with the clear consensus telling the world to Keep this article (only one delete vote made compared to the double figure Keep votes), its time we just end this 'debate' now. BigzMMA (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as nominator has presented no honest reason for deletion. His harassment of those arguing to keep is pathetic. Editors have presented that this notable event has received non-routine coverage, but the nominator keeps repeating the big lie per WP:DIDNTHEAR. --The Ultimate Editing Championship (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Striking comments made by a blocked troll. Mt king ^(edits) 11:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Samachisa

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

This individual has essentially no coverage in independent sources. The claims made in the article are unreferenced, the links are either dead or not about him, and any outside coverage is apparently limited to this. It's safe to say that one paragraph in one article from 1996 does not make for encyclopedic notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmajeremy (talk • contribs) 06:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google Books search turns up more on him than is mentioned above - I've added one book ref to his role in the development of flash memory into the article. He also has a substantial number of patents: [19] to his name. It is debatable whether this amounts to enough for demonstrable notability, but it is more than "essentially no coverage". AllyD (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna say Delete, per WP:BURDEN. The mere mention of his books in x sources does not amount to an encyclopedic entry. It may be borderline, but the scholar etc. hits do not seem to add enough content in the way of a biography. Dahn (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting for AllyD's comments to be given more time to be viewed by commentators. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified. I could find no verification that he is "well known" as the "inventor" of the first commercial flash-memory device, and he has no other claim to fame. Google Scholar finds some heavily-cited patents where his is one of several names on the patent; I don't think that qualifies him under WP:SCHOLAR. Google and Google News found absolutely nothing. The article supplies one passing reference to him in a book, along with three dead or unhelpful external links. --MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Abdul Rahman al Makki

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

Article about a Pakistani hakeem (traditional healer); no sources beyond a non-reliable web essay on the local history of his village (evidently written by the same person who created the article). No reliable info, no realistic indication of anything beyond strictly local notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable independent sources. No prospect of this meeting notability. Tigerboy1966 16:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No coverage in any source let alone reliable sources. --SMS ^Talk 21:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martino Traversa

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

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable person. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. The article has been deleted twice under A7. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martino Traversa is a very well knowed and respected contemporary music italian composer.

He is the founder of Traiettorie music festival, one of the most important contemporary music festival in Italy. He is the president of Prometeo Foundation and Art Director of Ensemble Varese. He's professor at Univerisity of Parma, at the Faculty of Literature and Philosophy. His music is published by NEOS and Die Schachtel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino Traversa (talk • contribs) — Martino Traversa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete referenced only to two interviews, not independent verifiable sources. Nothing to verify the content, none of his music appears to be notable as far as we can tell, autobiography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No evidence of notability in the article. However, the Traiettorie festival does seem to be very significant and notable (try a Google search for Festival "Internazionale di Musica"), and Martino Traversa has certainly been its musical director. It therefore seems quite plausible that there may be sources showing that Traversa is notable. However, I have found only brief mentions of him in connection with the festival, and Wikipedia takes the line that notability is not inherited. That is to say that we need direct coverage of him to show that he is notable, and we cannot assume that he is because of his connection with a notable festival. I don't like this article, self-promotional as it is, and would not be upset to see it deleted, but I am willing to hold back from saying "delete" at this stage, as it may be possible to find sources which will justify keeping the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The founder of a very notable festival is notable; a professor in a major university is likely to be as well. Not inherited means that subsidiaries or offshoots of the festival are not notable because the main organization is, -- the word "inheritance" was a careful choice: inheritance runs downwards. In this context, if it were the case that he was known to be certainly notable, it means the festival wouldn't necessarily be notable also, because its only a part of what he did. the other way, it does imply notability It is highly reasonable for the references on a person to be about hiswork--what else would they be about that would be of any importance? DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both refs on the article are to the same interview. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am not able to fix the article myself, he seems to be the subject of lots of coverage from major sources in the Italian press - not just for the festival[20] but also as a composer. Maybe some of these references could be added to the article to make his notability clearer. I notice that he does have an article at the Italian Wikipedia. BTW it would be better if this article could be improved by independent sources, rather than by User:Martino Traversa who wrote the current article, because of the conflict of interest guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The text is substantially a copyright violation of [21], which is a translation of [22]. Sandstein 07:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Indépendantristes

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

non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in multiple sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Strage

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Non-notable writer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but lose the picture). The Stora Journalistpriset is a major national journalism prize, although the other prize he has won twice is local. There are several articles solely about him and one or more of his books; I used one to reference the statement about his contributing to the anthology and put others in External links. The list of periodicals where his writing has appeared can be referenced from a combination of these and the publisher's page that was already in the article. It is apparent that he has a big reputation in his field in Sweden, he's been written about quite a bit, and that plus the one prize makes him notable, IMO. (He was also arrested and sentenced to a brief jail term for cocaine use in 2007 but I don't see recent references to that so did not add it to the article.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a known journalist in sweden. also per Yngvadottir.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with BabbaQ, and I know it because I myself am from Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.38.204 (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep, Stora Journalistpriset is enough for notability. --Petter (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known writer. The books Fans and Text were both reviewed in several newspapers and magazines. Strage is often quoted or mentioned in record reviews or other texts on popular music. /NH (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto. This article can remain a redirect to the main article for attribution purposes. —SW— ^verbalize 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents during Caribana

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

Perhaps some of this content can be fitted into the parent, but this one, as it stands, is unencyclopedic: we are neither the news nor a gathering of news items. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A timeline of every single criminal incident that happened (or is alleged to have happened) at one particular community festival is certainly something we don't need. Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, violence is so recurrent at Caribana that a large segment of the public knows Caribana as much for stabbings, shootings, etc as they do for the magnificent costumes. Google "caribana violence", there's 426,000 results. Before this article existed, undue weight was being put on the incidents in the main article. With this article, the incidents can be summarized in the main article, fully explained elsewhere. I fail to see how police enacting a "curfew by race" in Toronto is unencyclopedic trivia. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article, as written, is nothing more than a timeline of individual incidents that involved emergency responders in some way or another. It provides no context for why this might actually be an encyclopedic topic, such as an examination of how the complex history of police and media relations with the Black Canadian community might influence the coverage. It just lists a bunch of specific incidents that aren't individually notable, including some which have no connection to violence whatsoever — nobody has any need for a permanent record of how many people suffered from heatstroke in 1993, frex, or of one goofball jumping off a boat, trying to swim for shore and drowning accidentally in the process. A "curfew by race", if properly sourced, might be worth mentioning in the main article, but that doesn't make a separate spinoff just to keep a year-by-year timeline of individual incidents a necessary or useful thing for an encyclopedia to maintain. If the incidents are getting undue weight in the main article, then the solution is to remove them, not to spin them off into their own separate article — we don't need most of this content anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You start your comment with "The article, as written..." But isn't deletion supposed to be based on the notability of the topic -- not on the article's current state?
Incorporation of "an examination of the history" of Police, media and the black community interaction at Caribana is possible, but care would have to be exercised to avoid lapses from NPOV, VER and original research. I think it would have been better if the concerns of those who argue for delete or merge here had been raised on the talk page, or through editorial tags, first rather than immediately jump to {{afd}}. If attempts to address them failed, then deletion might be an appropriate next step. Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main Caribana article. Lots of larger festivals worldwide have "incidents" that would make lists a lot longer than this one. No need for individual articles for all those lists. This particular one isn't really noteworthy or remarkable. If it's really worth mentioning, it can be summarized and tacked onto the main article on the festival itself. OttawaAC (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto, aka the main article. There's no need to have a separate article for the incidents - the main article isn't particularly long. After it's merged, then the Incidents article should be deleted. PK T(alk) 15:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above to Caribana (I'll still call it that and they shouldn't have bowed to the threats). Not enough material to warrant forking from the main article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verified information to Scotiabank Caribbean Carnival Toronto, which is concise enough to not become overly long per this suggested merge. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find Zanimum's arguments about WP:UNDUE convincing. I agree with floydian we should keep calling the festival "Caribana". Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I pasted a paragraph from this article into Trillium_(ship,_1913). One interpretation of our policy on attribution would require keeping the contribution history of Incidents during Caribana, in order to preserve a record of who contributed to that paragraph. Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into parent article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However would be happy to userfy for anyone who wished to follow up on the suggestion to merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of Development

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

Non-notable journal: no independent sources, not listed in any major, selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's OCLC 774086872. WorldCat lists it in only three libraries, all in the Netherlands. If its not notable enough to be carried by a single university library in the English-speaking world, it isn't notable enough for the English-language Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of Development is available in two databases: DOAJ(DOAJ content for Economics of Development) and BASE (search engine)(search engines especially for academic open access web resources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapil (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's surprising that it is in so few libraries, because as an open access journal, such a listing consists of just an external link that doesn't cost anything... As for DOAJ and BASE: DOAJ is completely non-selective and will index any OA journal. BASE is unclear about its inclusion criteria, although from their website it seems that they are not very selective ("If you operate a repository and you can't find it in the list, please send a quick note to let us know"). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the majority of the Ukrainian scientific journals in the fields of economy the prevailing practice is to place only at the site of the National Library (link for Economics of development journal). DOAJ, as I know, has only one such journal. Accordingly, the global scientific community access to the development of Ukrainian economists are very limited. This article is a kind of attempt to correct this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapil (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your plight, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all criteria of article acceptance. It is clear that I would like to leave it. I leave to your discretion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapil (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion we should have the lowest of all possible bars for the notability of peer-reviewed academic journals. It's a reliable source at WP, it might be used to cite facts in WP articles, those questioning these citations might want to investigate their source. Now, that's a lot of "maybes" and "what ifs," but that's a fairly lucid case for an IAR Keep here, in my estimation. Nope, sources are lacking. But the greater good of maintaining the encyclopedia outweighs that detail here... Carrite (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's very much a minority viewpoint. WP:NJournals did not become an official guideline (it's an essay right now), because too many people felt that it was setting the bar too low. As I said in the now, this journal does not even meet that bar. As for this being an RS, there are by now many online journals around that claim to be peer reviewed/academic/scientific/whatever, but many of them are nothing of the sort. To say that this journal is, indeed, an RS, I think we would need independent sources (and personally, I am quite willing to find one single reputable and selective database that decides to index a journal sufficient evidence for that). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in any selective index. It is right and appropriate that the international community of economists have access to this journal, and that's exactly the purpose of DOAJ, which has done this successfully a many years now.. Wikipedia is not a web catalog, especially when there is a good one already in existence for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kharkiv National University of Economics or to a list. Regrettably, the sourcing requirements of WP:GNG are not met, but the journal can still be covered as part of the article about the university, or in an appropriate list of journals. Sandstein 07:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete with no prejudice against speedy renomination. This has been relisted for over a week with no additional comments. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driver deaths in British motorsport series

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

Such list do exists, but these are for notable drivers who fatally crashed or drivers who have crashed in a notable meetings/championships. For lesser notable drivers, entries only exist in lists for circuits that is notoriously dangerous or a race or series, supported by reliable third party sources.

The question is how many of these drivers are really notable to have their own article here enough to meet Wikipedia guidelines, only a small percentage, which is why I am nominating this for deletion as only a tiny handful and do we need a memorial for people who will never be notable enough for their own article. Not forgetting that I do not see any reliable third party source to back these up apart from the one whose death had nothing to do with this entry (both died outside the UK) as well that they are poorly sourced. Plus drivers in club racing series does not qualify for notability unless they moved up to bigger things. It should be known that the majority of these listed are in club series. Donnie Park (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting comment We do not need a list of one event cases for that these people have never been notable before their accidents. Donnie Park (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I believe that it's well established that people and things who are not otherwise notable can be included as part of a list, which is what this would fall under (I can't recall the specific page off the top of my head that says that, unfortunatly, but I do know it's there...). Anyway, this is a notable topic, however, it is horridly referenced - I doubt motorsportmemorial.org is a reliable source. If it can be reliably sourced, though, there is no reason to delete this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established and notable topic because people die every year and these will only be covered only on Autosport and Motorsport News, not as major news. The question is are these amateur sportspeople ever likely to earn notability status because they fatally crashed, no, not under the WP:1E guidelines. and do we need a trivial list of club level sportspoeple who fatally crashed in club level sport and why do we need a list of non-notable people who fatally crashed in bottom level sport, which none of these will ever likely to meet notability guidelines.

The reason why lists for the Isle of Man TT, Indianapolis 500, Dakar Rally, Le Mans, Spa-Francorchamps, Monza, Nürburgring do exist is because these venues/events have a dangerous reputation attached to it and this nominated list only serve a purpose of being nothing but a memorial of those who died in club level sport, which will never meet notability. Donnie Park (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Even if this list were narrowed down to only the notable drivers, it could still be a viable list. My primary concern is that all the drivers are sourced by only one source. Stedrick (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albeit badly sourced.

It would be more viable to break the list up into those for separate circuits like every one of those lists, after all there are two circuits or more that is known to have (or used to have) a dangerous reputation to it which is Silverstone and Brands Hatch. At the end of the day, there are plenty of famous drivers who fatally crashed at these venues and what is better for us all, a dedicated list of those who fatally crashed at circuits or a list of non-notable drivers who fatally crashed in club series. Donnie Park (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Evans & Sutherland . v/r - T P 00:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digistar 3

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

Non-notable projection product, and a non-notable list of places that use that product. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: my business has a commercial relationship with the manufacturer of this technology. DigiStar as a family of products is notable for being the first digital immersive projection system. However, I agree that singling out the technology and in particular featuring one particular generation of it (Digistar 3) gives it undue prominence. How do folks feel about merging the text of this article into that covering its manufacturer, Evans & Sutherland, as a section? I am happy to do that if it follows a consensus decision. Hugh Mason (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to a section devoted to the Digistar line, explaining why it is unique, etc., but is there any content in this article that is worth merging? We can't fill articles with sections on every product from every line they have made; that is a catalog. "DigiStar as a family of products is notable for being the first digital immersive projection system." - this article mentions none of that, and only talks about general info on Digistar 3. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge some of it to Evans & Sutherland as suggested. Obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge a brief mention to company article. - Frankie1969 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Evans & Sutherland. Suggest also merge Digistar II, Digistar Users Group, LDS-1 (Line Drawing System-1) and Evans & Sutherland ES-1 while we're at it. --Kvng (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourcable content into E&S. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drunvalo Melchizedek

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

Bringing this to AfD as I have strong doubts about the notability of the subject. In ten pages of ghits, I saw nothing that looked like an RS, and the article itself doesn't appear to have any either. I am not commenting about the subject himself or his 'teachings'. Those may be the key to the future or total cobblers. The question to me is, 'Is there notability?'. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've also nommed it for CSD under G11; which is it to be? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. That was Jeraphine Gryphon's CSD nom. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my mistake. Comment struck. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources for notability, see this (Swedish online magazine), this (legal documents), this (newspaper article on the detrimental effects of his teaching) and others. Given that the article's currently up for speedy I see little point in adding these at the present time; if the page is kept, we can look at adding them. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Swedish one is actually Slovenian, and doesn't read like a discussion of, or review of, the subject. It looks like a regurgitation of his beliefs. I'm not sure about the status of court actions in terms of establishing notability as they are rather more involved than independent. The third one is part of something from elsewhere (no, I don't mean aliens...) - the original publication might be of more interest and could be an RS. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced about notability either way (though I don't think legal papers increase notability?), but I still think it qualifies for the speedy. I deleted some material beforehand ("his books are more experiential, and extend beyond the experience of most of the population and may require suspension of judgment until the reader has sought to test what Drunvalo teaches through practice in their own life"), but it's still promotion only and the references go only to his website and books. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm always bumping into this name, and see his books on shelves in very non-esoteric shops. Robert Mayer devotes a chapter to him in "The Intrigue of the Possible". According to Amazon sales ranks, his current book is...

no 1 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Earth Based Religions > Native American

no 4 in Books > History > North America > Native Americans

no 6 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Thought & Practice > Spiritualism

which may or may not be notable generally, but I suspect it's close. K2709 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'comment I removed the speedy; if he actually s notable, which I very much doubt, the article would be edited to remove promotionalism. FWIW, I call attention to "Melchizedek completed most of a Basic degree in Physics and Mathematics before switching to a fine arts degree which he was awarded in 1970." (sourced to a his preface to his own book) "His fine arts degree was from the University of California at Berkeley, obtained without finishing the course due to clerical errors by the university" DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Redacted) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. 4 self-published books, with no available reviews or critical comment or discussion, and nothing else but a platform for his non-notable views. I am willing to fix a mess when the subject is notable enough, but even if this is kept by some weird chance, there isn't enough material to be worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For several reasons: Most importantly, the topic has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Feel free to disregard the following reasons, as the first is sufficient. This article is complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Also, my wife read it and says that this article is WP:CLAPTRAP and promotional. Also, we ought to have especially stringent notability standards for any person who says that "Melchizedek" is their surname. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, lack of 3rd party notability. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited it a bit. Above assertions of being "self-published" and not having received coverage are false. There's a ton of coverage if you just do a simple Google Books search (well, like 80% of the results are self-published books from iUniverse and AuthorHouse and similar 'publishers' but there's enough results from legit and more-or-less legit publishers, I listed four of them in the Further reading section). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Weiser Books is not an independent source as they have published at least one of his books and have an interest in promoting his works. I do not consider Weiser Books, Llewellyn Worldwide or books published by David Hatcher Childress to be reliable sources because they do not have a "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and instead are questionable sources with "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." The coverage in the book published by Duke University Press consists of a couple of passing mentions without the level of detail to amount to significant coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if you disregard the Weiser one, I'm 99% sure I can find another one from Google Books to replace that (looks like I'm the only who bothered to make an actual search before !voting...). Again, there's plenty of non-self-published books in the search that make reference to him, I just didn't list them all. (And I'm fairly good at weeding out self-published ones though besides Lulu there are tons of other self-publishers, I just google every publisher I hadn't heard of before.) Coverage in published sources (yes, Llewellyn is a real publisher, like it or not) establishes notability, which was the issue here. I haven't used these sources as references to any wild claims, so how "reliable" you think they are is not relevant. And I don't think being written about on three pages qualifies as a "passing mention", you're now deliberately exaggerating to have your way. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a ref to an extensive interview on a Slovenian daily. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a New Ager. Been one for years. I suppose you could call me an 'expert' in this category. Like him or not, Drunvalo is a rockstar in my community which, while comparatively small, certainly includes hundreds of thousands if not millions worldwide. Any simple search on Google [23], YouTube[24] and Facebook[25] would quickly and easily confirm this fact. If you think he's controversial, feel welcome to include that in the article and cite your references.Stephen.israel — Stephen.israel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Google link appears to be identical to the Facebook one. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Stephen.israel, I am sorry to say that your claimed expertise means nothing in this debate, and neither does your characterization of the subject as a "rockstar". It also doesn't matter whether anyone likes or dislikes the subject. What matters here is coverage in reliable sources. Facebook is a website consisting of user-submitted content and is therefore useless to establish notability on Wikipedia. If and only if notability is established through other means, then the subject's own Facebook page can be used in a limited way as a primary source. YouTube is similar, and amateur videos or videos associated with the subject are useless to establish notability. A simple Google search does not establish notability, as the vast majority of Google hits on pretty much any topic are not reliable sources. What we need is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I emphasize "independent" because websites, books and videos produced by the subject or organizations affiliated with the subject do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just been looking through the 100 most spiritually influential (or something like it) list. Our subject comes in at 54, the Dalai Lama at number 1 (with which I won't disagree), a certain Joseph Ratzinger (like the subject here, better known by a pseudonym) at 45, and Erich von Däniken at 41. Yes, well... I would like to know more about the compilation of this list, which appears to emanate from a London bookshop who specialise in this area of 'literature'. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this article to delete, needs more inputs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachmyke (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Harmon

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

Notability concerns. Primary sourcing, casual mention in a list, and imdb isn't enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is "ALL MUSIC" not a notable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theultravisitor (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but only if there's a biography of him there. Just a directory listing isn't enough. And I don't see a biography of him there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, fails WP:GNG. —SW— ^speak 16:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fornade

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, and kinda reads like an autobiography/fan site, and more than likely has COI issues. Osarius Talk 23:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but would be better in prose. Osarius Talk 09:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some references to the article. Unfortunately, we're going to need someone who can do a full Romanian language search to find more and the article itself needs a fair amount of cleanup. But Fornade himself appears to be a fairly important editor/writer that has made a number of encyclopedias or was involved in making them in Romanian. He also is the President and otherwise head of a number of different groups, having founded a newspaper, among other things. He appears perfectly notable to me. Silver seren^C 03:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears notable. I vote to keep but add more sources and write a better lead.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, so the man's notoriety rests on being heavily spam-cited by the lovely Florentin Smarandache, and on circular references from obscure outlets in the Romanian diaspora. Plus he issues some fanzine abroad, and is not uneducated. That is what the article tells us, that is what all sources tell us until we get tired of trying to find anything relevant (which I did, going through google, google books and scholar). Waiting for hypothetical citations to hypothetical material just isn't an option. Dahn (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some sort of connection or other involvement with the subject? Because you seem to be very hostile toward him. The sources show that he's worked on a number of well-regarded encyclopedias. I think that expresses a fair amount of notability. Silver seren^C 21:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that AfD participants are actual human beings with senses of humor and irony and of the absurd, and that no policy asks that they check these at the door and make comments that are solely based on policy. It's all right to gently mock some nonentity—indeed we'd lose something valuable if that ever stopped—and this need not draw laughable charges of a conflict of interest.
But I will say this for him: impressive hairdo and moustache. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silver, let's not do reverse psychology here, if you please. Dahn (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but if all we have on the guy is a clutch of puff pieces in third-tier papers and bare passing mention in a legitimate one, that just doesn't cut it. He does seem to have immersed himself in exile circle dilettantism during his decades abroad, but none of the claims to notability is commented upon by sources on him, as required by WP:BIO. I don't doubt, for instance, that he's "President of Danway Publications", but so what? Has any third-party source ever decided that's something relevant? (And no, a local newspaper brief asking for self-submissions of biographies for Fornade's next "dictionary" doesn't count.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a biography of him made by the Holy Trinity Romanian Orthodox Church, which includes some references at the bottom that we should look into. Oh, found one. And he does have an impressive mustache. I would say that he's notable because of his involvement in being pretty much the only person documenting the Romanian Diaspora, which is what the sources are discussing in relation to him. Silver seren^C 00:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't it strike you as odd that his is the only biography in the "who's who" at the Holy Trinity Church? To the question "who's who?" they literally give you the answer "Dan Fornade"... Not that a CV submitted by (or to) a subprovincial church is in any way a WP:RS, mind you, but even there they don't make any effort to seem encyclopedic. And the "refs" at the bottom, all of them from the 1990s, are quite unconvincing: in his career, all he gets are 3 mentions, far between, in central newspapers (not the most reliable ones, especially the shady Ziua) and, supposedly (if we're to go by what the non-reliable source says), a mention of his newspaper in Hangiu's dictionary, which doesn't omit anything. About Ziare.com: everything makes it there, it's a news aggregator; maybe you would like us to hold an article about Vasile Dina, the Vice Mayor of Valea Danului... Dahn (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, regarding the puff pieces in business24, ziuadecluj etc.: what they all relate to is the launch of his Dictionary of Cluj City Personalities, which, zowie, sold all its printed copies within 20 minutes; all its 150 printed copies, that is! Ziua de Cluj only mentions Fornade once, to quote his statement: "Am ales să publicăm la început un tiraj limitat, pentru ca referenţii cărţii să poată aduce sugestii, varianta finală urmând a fi publicată în toamnă, în câteva mii de exemplare" ("We chose to publish at first a limited issue, so that the book reviewers may bring in suggestions, the final variant will be available come fall, in a few thousand copies"). So Fornade's "well-regarded" encyclopedia would have had a second edition in autumn 2007, but it is apparently not covered by any source and we can presume it to be non-existent as far as coverage goes; what we do have is a book that sold 150 copies, wasn't peer-reviewed, and would have had at most a few thousand (not even tens of thousands of) copies. Sooper. Dahn (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A high school teacher in Montreal (although he likes to refer to himself as professor), six self-published books [26], publishes a local Romanian newspaper in Montreal (circulation unknown because all searches for Romanian Morning Star circle back to Fornade links). No significant coverage found in any reliable source. (Note that who's who book entries like this are commonly vanity self-submissions.) Without any coverage independent of the individual, this bio fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:PROF. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Cigar Magazine

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

I am unable to find significant reliable sources that discuss this magazine. Google search for "No Cigar magazine" only results in about eight pages. Search for "No Cigar" magazine is unhelpful. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a non-notable new web fashion 'zine that has published two issues this year and has received zero coverage by reliable independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, just not finding coverage in reliable sources at this time. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON regarding this magazine having a Wikipedia article at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hipperos

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

Unfortunately, I was not able to find enough independent, reliable sources for this proprietary, closed sourced OS. Bordeline advertising too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC) This is a new system, that just came out of the university labs. There are not so many public references yet, but these will come gradually, as the page is being completed. BenRodriguezLobera 23:10, 9 March 2012 (WET)[reply]

Actually, you have just given the reason why this article should be deleted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just another OS to be used in embedded devices and dumbphones. WP:MILL applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like it fails WP:N. Although, I see several websites that mention the subject in other languages. Perhaps WP:NOENG might help? StandardSwan (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as above, fails WP:N. Also, created by an SPA as potentially promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searching, just not finding coverage in reliable sources at this time. No prejudice toward re-creation of an article about this operating system when it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Jackson (entrepreneur)

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)

The article was PRODed for the lack of significant coverage from reliable souces. The PROD was removed by the creator (which also removed maintenance tags, which I restored) of the page. Renominating to AfD for the same concern. -Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't delete~~ - Furthermore, how can you call Social Tech Pop an unreliable reference?! It is 80,000 on Alexa rankings and has a Google sponsored WOT reliability rating of very good- 80%. [27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.185.167 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — 109.157.185.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't delete~~ - Look he is clearly involved with a lot of notable articles, Calfix, Teenage Republicans and Henry and Stacey Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.185.167 (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC) — 109.157.185.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Calfix was speedied before under A7. It was recreated, and has been in majority edited by you. I nominated it to an AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calfix.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 12:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not delete~~ - All sources have been verified. I tried to upload a further source (interview of Reid Jackson (entrepreneur) on Colourful Radio but don't know how. Help? Here is a link to his interview f.cl.ly/items/2x353r3s3u3B1h1A2x2b/Breakfast with Bonsu and Juju.m4a— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.185.167 (talk) 08:31, March 17, 2012‎ EST— 109.157.185.167 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to locate secondary reliable sources to establish notability. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON created by a WP:COI editor who also removed the PROD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about a teenager who has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The political "position" he holds is also non-notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just barely over the like from A7 but not by much --Guerillero | My Talk 06:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've stricken the multiple comments by the same IP. Just to let you know, you can only really specify "delete" or "don't delete" once. You can continue your argument, but don't keep putting "don't delete" at the beginning. Just put "comment" down.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no connection with the subject of either Reid Jackson or Calfix, but rather a connection with one of the media outlets that has been talking about him (Social Tech Pop- you can Google us, we're not just some obscure blogger). I believe this to be an interesting story and thought that it belongs on Wikipedia. Delete both articles if you want, I think they are significant and have had more than enough press coverage to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is relevant. If you feel like it can be expanded on, feel free. There is more than enough coverage of this elsewhere on the internet. I have removed the 'consider for deletion' tag, you can keep the others if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Maybe someday, maybe not. This one has all the hallmarks of self-bio. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said, not a self-bio. I am in no way affiliated with Jackson. Passes GNG- [28] is a reliable source and there is a full article about him referenced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.58.2 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... the only problem is that it's only a blog. It's a very nicely laid out one, but it's still a blog and blogs are rarely considered to be reliable sources that show notability. You have to be considered an absolute authority or be a notable person to have the blog considered reliable. This means that you're quoted by books, news articles, and scholars. Being a popular blog does not equal to being a reliable source per Wikipedia. Here's the rundown of the sources on the article:

[29] This is to a random site that appears to be more of a forum where anyone can post an article. It also doesn't help that it's purely a press release... the same press release that's posted in link number 2.
[30] This is the same as the first link. Press releases are NEVER considered to be anything that could show notability since it's released by the company/Jackson themselves. No matter how many copies you post of the same press release, it won't show notability. (And even if it wasn't a press release, posting multiple copies of the same article will not give the article extra notability. It'll just make it look that much sketchier.) It's considered to be a primary sources and primary sources can only be used if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability, which there aren't.
[31] See above. It's a pretty blog but it's not what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Even if it was, one source does not show notability. Considering that the blog has only been around since 2010, it's unlikely that they've managed to get to where they'd be considered a reliable source. If you want to see if it is, feel free to ask on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - Look, if you insist that it's not okay, then go ahead and delete it. Just don't ban it from being edited again because more press will come out about this guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraellevitt (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets close this as Delete. And if the topic becomes notable, then restore or rewrite the article.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found out about this from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. He does not seem like a fringe personality, but he's not yet all that notable. He might be in a few years time! --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Maybe we don't delete~~ - I also got here from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. I know I'm new around here, just trying to help out, BUT I think we leave this page alone and see if it develops. I mean, he seems to be involved with some notable things. Surely that makes him notable? I mean, even without the CalFix stuff, just the Teenage Republicans ambassadorship should make him notable enough. Right? Wrattenka (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Wrattenka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sock of article author. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to indicate any achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure of no genuine notability; fails to meet any of our specialized or general notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All comments by socks now marked as such, bolded opinions struck, see SPI case page. Closing admin may weigh them as is felt appropriate. Amalthea 12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Circus

AfDs for this article:

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

As was said in the previous discussion, the article is sourced almost exclusively by blogs acting on Recentism, and it fails the notability standard of significant coverage. A paragraph in Family Circus and Jersey Shore's respective parody sections is good enough, but a separate article for the blog is in no way needed. ~jcm 03:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article crosses both the notability and verifiability thresholds. Unclear on the benefits to the reader of a merger with the Family Circus and Jersey Shore articles. Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." - Dravecky (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Dravecky (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are just brief blog posts, failing the "significance" standard of Wikipedia:Notability. It has no awards which would meet Wikipedia:Notability (web). All sources are from a three-day period in 2010, so it's pretty clear this has no historical significance (See WP:NOTGUIDE). Rangoondispenser (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rangoondispenser. This site may have received brief press coverage, but there's no sign of lasting notability here. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since Martijn Hoekstra didn't think the consensus was strong enough to punch this 7 days ago and there have been no comments since his relisting, let's give this some more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all sources are incidental one-off coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPASR By the recentism argument of the nomination, 1930 Palm Island tragedy also has a WP:Recentism problem, because the article depends on 1930 newspapers. The recentism argument was used in the first AfD, which lacked the perspective of time that we now have, and what we have now is that this blog is as timeless as Family Circus. I've looked at four of the sources and the blog itself, I glanced at the first page of the Google results, I don't see spending more time working up the nomination rationale, which work may or may not lead me to conclude this article should be deleted or merged instead of kept. Are these writers well-enough known for these blog sources to be considered reliable? What happens on the second page of the Google links, etc.? I don't see that a contributor to the AfD here has reported on a search for more sources. Is there any evidence that we are linking to a page of copyright violation? Is there already material on the two merger targets mentioned by the nomination, or is this a do-it-yourself merger project? Unscintillating (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, others (at least me) have taken the time to extensively look for significant coverage, and we have failed. I found one single sentence on this in the Winnipeg Free Press, but that's just more insignificant coverage like what is already in the article. I've also waded through the numerous false positives looking for any significant coverage of this topic. For example, the Providence Journal-Bulletin writes about "Vidbel's Olde Tyme Family Circus ... Ringmaster Dan McCallum ... is from New Jersey, has been with the circus for five years." The Zanesville Times-Recorder writes that "The Zerbini Family Circus really emphasizes family ... Having come in Sunday night from New Jersey, the circus was ready for its first performance." So after extensive searching, I've found no significant coverage in reliable sources for this topic, and no such coverage have been provided by others. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOWFLAKE, the webcomic has been noted by several independent reliable sources that provide enough professional coverage to write a well-sourced critical reaction section. That this section can be created is proof that coverage for the topic is significant. Diego (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, copying and pasting a few sentences off blogs doesn't suddenly make a few sentences on blogs significant coverage, or even "critical reaction" for that matter. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoondispenser, maybe nobody has pointed you before to the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline. Even then, you should know better than inserting your opinion about the sources in the article given that you've been here for almost a year and you're participating at AfDs.

We may disagree as to whether the sources in the article confer notability. But either they're reliable sources and thus should be used to support verifiable and attributable opinions, or they are not and should be removed altogether; trying to discredit the sources in the article's body is disruptive, since that should be done at talk pages.

I've already stated why I think the sources establish notability. Both the spirit and the letter of WP:N are concerned with having enough content to write articles, and in this case that's exactly what the sources allow. Your stated concern that these are blogs is not relevant; the format in which a source publishes information doesn't affect its reliability. What matters is that these entries are published at sites with editorial guidelines and the professional authors that wrote them will be held responsible by their publishers. Diego (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Moya, maybe nobody has pointed you before to the article talk page which is where we discuss disputes over the content of the article. This is the AfD page, where if you'd like us to keep this article you could tell everyone which sources you believe meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard of Wikipedia:Notability. Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, the sources are those currently used in the article for reference, of course. In particular, the ones that allow each sentence in the start-class article to be verified. The ones from Time (magazine), VH1, Tosh.0, Gawker Media and Paste (magazine), those unreliable and not-independent sources. Diego (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not examples that meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" standard of Wikipedia:Notability. They look like they are each less than a hundred words. For example this is the entirety of the Jezebel blog entry (the Gawker Media site you refer to): GTL has even infiltrated the Sunday funnies. The creators of the blog Jersey Circus are on a mission 'to reconcile our guilty delight in Jersey Shore, a bastion of trash, with our eye-rolling fondness for the Family Circus.' That's it, 38 words. That's not significant coverage, that is not a source "addressing the subject directly in detail", it is instead the very definition of "trivial coverage". It is also a far cry from the WP:PROFESSIONAL "critical commentary" test of the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay you've cited "Has the item merited comments that suppose a value judgment or elaborate critique by critics? (i.e. information other than a routine description of its properties)." No, this is not an elaborate critique; it is just a routine description. This is exactly the type of brief coverage that Wikipedia:Notability (web) describes as "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" that is not an indicator of notability. These types of blog entries only describe the nature of the website, and as our Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy says, "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So, no, you have not provided any examples of sources that meet our significant coverage standard. Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're measuring significance by the number of words, instead of their meaning? I'd say that the assertions provided by those people are value judgments (not "the nature of the content" nor just its URL), that they are professionals, that they address the topic directly and not while talking about other things ("in passing"), and more importantly - that they give enough details so that that "no original research is needed to extract the content" (WP:GNG). The Reception section is exactly what the guideline means with achievements and impact as opposed to mere description. Diego (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the Jezabel example was mentioned as a source that "allows each sentence to be verified", not as critical commentary, since it's not used at the Reception section. Diego (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the length of the coverage is one long-standing standard we wikipedia editors use to judge the significance of coverage, as per our policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Notability: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ... ... The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton ... is plainly trivial." See WP:WEB "trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content." These sources do not address the subject in detail, they are very brief summaries, they are plainly trivial, they are not elaborate critiques by critics. For you to describe these brief blog entries as providing "a well-sourced critical reaction section" is completely incorrect. Rangoondispenser (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline that establishes notability is the WP:GNG proper, not the alternate way to provide notability that is WP:WEB. The sources are not used to talk about the nature of the content but about its significance, as in "having something to write about"; remember that significance!=importance, because obscure topics are also allowed by Notability. The length of sources is deliberately never mentioned; instead it talks of depth and quality. The criterion for significance as agreed by the community is that several sources can provide notability, and that secondary ones are the best for that. The measure by which significance is gauged by the guideline (and thus the community consensus) is not the number of words as you say, is the fact that it allows us to write neutral content in the article. This is exactly the situation here.Diego (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "Three Blind Mice" quote mentioned in the guideline is trivial precisely because it doesn't make judgements of value about the band, it uses the name while talking about Bill Clinton. The sources in this article are making judgements of value about the webcomic, and thus are direct and significant coverage of it - because WP:RSOPINION allows us to use them to state their author's opinion: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources [...] that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format". Diego (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made it clear to the closing admin that you believe a 38-word blog post saying simply GTL has even infiltrated the Sunday funnies. The creators of the blog Jersey Circus are on a mission 'to reconcile our guilty delight in Jersey Shore, a bastion of trash, with our eye-rolling fondness for the Family Circus' represents a source of significance, depth, quality, deals with achievement and impact, addresses the subject in detail, and is well-sourced critical reaction. I think I've clearly stated why I believe otherwise, so at this point I'm going to just agree to disagree with you. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat it, since you obviously haven't read my previous P.S.:

P.S. the Jezabel example was mentioned as a source that "allows each sentence to be verified", not as critical commentary, since it's not used at the Reception section. Diego (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. this is the significant content as noted by independent commentators.Diego (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Valencia (video game developer)

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- I'm not finding any reference supporting his notability; certainly, the references listed do not qualify. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm inclined to say delete, but I wouldn't rush it. I think the term video game developer, or at least the subject's role as one, needs to be more clearly defined. Video games are usually developed by large groups of people that are part of a video game developing organization. Was he one person in a twenty-person team that developed terrain graphics, or did he play some larger role like project manager or even owner of a development organization. This definition might narrow the scope enough to turn up better sources, but I doubt it. StandardSwan (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person; nothing immediately seen at gnews or google beyond being in a credit list. To StandardSwan's comment, you are absolutely right - in most cases, there's teams of tens and hundreds working on a game. Even just leading development doesn't assure notability. There are a handful of developers however that have been recognized as visionary leads and thus are obviously notable through sources, but this article here is not one of them. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At this point I agree with Masem. Fails WP:N. The only possible hope notability for this article is a claim that the individual founded Invisible Wonder Games, which also appears to be non-notable. StandardSwan (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Alford

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

Non-notable artist. He has some mentions, but not substantial coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Akin to an article about minor characters in Star Wars. We can't demonstrate notability until he becomes known outside of his personal fandom. Shii (tock) 07:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can understand why an editor might doubt the notability of this very young artist from Kansas City. However, his "Sex-Ed" condom art piece has solid sourcing in independent reliable sources, as cited in the article and in other non-local sources such as [32][33]. Even so, one might reasonably think WP:BLP1E applies, except that there's also coverage of some of his other work. The article asserts that he's been written about in a Taiwanese magazine and in the book 50 Contemporary Artists You Should Know; this content appears to be off-line and I can't confirm what it says, but we can verify the positive review his underwater series received in a regional arts journal called Review,[34] which appears to be a legitimate publication consistent with WP:RS.[35] Unless there's some reason not to take all this at face value, it appears to me that he passes WP:GNG, if narrowly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Understanding that there are multiple independent sources over a spanse of time, I consider this a keep. There are book, internet, and CNN sources that add to the validity WP:RS. It may be a bit premature of a page but from the consistency of reviews it seems that there will be more information in the future. (User: Marc Poissons) 3:48, 25 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.95.97 (talk)

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) 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article definitely overstates his significance: "highly controvercial" indeed! --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find that even though he is not extremely notable, he has had substantial coverage, especially a book of caliber, CNN, and Taiwanese magazine. This makes it considered international coverage and I consider it to be worthy of entry. Needs to have better writing though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.131.139 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2012

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAMRA (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page - all covered in hatnote except for possible spelling mistakes. If we have a dab page, then someone wanting the Canberra orgn will have one further click to do (CAMRA redirects to Campaign ..., would then have hatnote to dab page, with link) (I absent-mindedly took this to MfD forgetting how dab pages should be treated, and it was procedurally closed there). PamD 07:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not strictly necessary, I don't see the harm in it. There is no rule requiring that just because a "Foo (disambiguation)" page exists, it must be linked from a hatnote in the "Foo" article; on the other hand, I could see readers who have become accustomed to our use of "(disambiguation)" in titles searching for CAMRA (disambiguation). bd2412 T 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this unnecessary dab page is kept but not linked from CAMRA, then it will not be found by editors making changes to any senses of CAMRA and risks becoming out of date and confusing. PamD 08:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only circumstance I can see where changes to "any senses of CAMRA" would apply would be if new senses were discovered, at which point the need for a disambiguation page would be even more clear, and anyone thinking that one should be made would find this title as soon as they went there to make such a page. bd2412 T 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note that other sense were removed, as not having suitable target articles yet. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and restore the other meanings, and re-write MOSdab. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation pages are to assist navigation between Wikipedia articles when a redirect to only one of them is impossible. "Restore other meanings" in this case means "create encyclopedia content for the other meanings", in line with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. AfD is not the place to redefine WP:D (not just rewrite WP:MOSDAB).-- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the benefits of the See also, and hatnote from Campaign for Real Ale, but definitely do not restore other meanings with no encyclopedia coverage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self Service Science Forum

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

Non-notable web forum. Can not find any reliable sources covering the forum. Fails WP:WEB. Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence that this online forum has made any significant impact to science or any other areas of society. I can find no mention in reliable sources, so it doesn't seem notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a sockpuppet issue on the article. I have semi-protected it, which would make improvements by new users more difficult. This may be relevant to consider for a deletion discussion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect that it's not notable or has little impact - It's very popular in Australia and around the world. There are visitors from around the world though most are locally from Australia. There are few science-oriented sites as good as SSSF, due to the style of the site. Billzilla (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SSSF is by far Australia's major science-related internet forum, receiving over 400000 posts per annum. It is the first internet forum listed if you Google "site:au science". Ordinary Person (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the Wikipedia definition of notability under WP:WEB. Popularity does not equal notability QU ^TalkQu 16:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I Google "site:au science" I don't see it. Nor had I heard of it until now. It has no news hits and doesn't seem to be all that notable, but broadening the article to cover all of ABC Science Online may perhaps be appropriate. -- 202.124.73.39 (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - I get New Scientist as the top list, SSSF does not feature. Regardless, Google hits is a very poor indicator of notability; unless reliable sources can be found to attribute notability, the article should be deleted. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You've made a f'ing stupid decision. Billzilla (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lost City Angels

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

Almost notable, but not quite. One release on a major indie label (one release on a non-notable label) and no members notable enough for their own WP articles. Fails WP:BAND. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator focuses on two aspects only of WP:BAND and gives no indication of having searched for coverage. There's a bio ([36]) and two reviews ([37], [38]) at Allmusic, there's this from CMJ New Music Monthly which also states that the band's album was reviewed in Boston Weekly, Dig, Live Magazine, Slug, and Soundcheck, there's a chart placing at 61 on the CMJ Radio 100 Chart, a substantial article in the Boston Globe, another, and an article from the Free Lance-Star. And this is just the stuff that Google throws at me. Clearly passess WP:GNG and WP:BAND criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Allmusic write-ups, Boston Globe articles and CMJ piece are enough for this band to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 00:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJMax

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

Does not meet WP:V and WP:N; no reliable sources found in Google News search Miniapolis (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A very popular franchise in far east[39] which gets frequent if sometimes brief mentions in Western gaming media: full-length reviews[40][41]; Metacritic pages[42][43]; shorter mentions[44][45][46][47][48]. There's a lot of related pages on WP e.g. DJMax Trilogy, DJMax Portable, DJMax Technika, which may contain additional evidence for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nominator). All external links cited above are to advertising or product-review sites; all three other DJMax articles have been tagged by other editors for problematic (or no) sources. Not every video game (or video-game franchise) needs a Wikipedia article. Miniapolis (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in western media, very popular in the east. Kotaku. The company has even been sued by Konami. Why this is even nominated as it is a product for sale, and actually quite popular is beyond me. Things must have changed the years I've been gone from WP.. Edit: Even being SOLD in the western countries both on Amazon, Play etc. Why have you nominated this? Seriously.. This is like nominating Dance Dance Revolution. Havok (T/C/e/c) 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is for sale doesn't mean it requires a Wikipedia article. As explained above, I was unable to find reliable sources for the article's subject; if other editors can find sources meeting the RS guidelines, they are free to add them (and add them to related DJMax articles as well, since they have the same problem). Miniapolis (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, it has been featured in many gaming publications and websites. You state WP:QS when Colapeninsula gives links to several reputable websites (Edge, IGN, GameSpy) whom all have their own WP pages. Could you also please state which part of WP:V this fails? Also, WP:RS is a guideline where the very first part of it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It would be better if you tagged the articles with merge and/or *{{refimprove}} rather then nominating it for deletion. And, it doesn't seem to me as if you followed all the points of BEFORE Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the aims of the Article Rescue Squadron; however, it seems more productive to actually improve an article tagged for deletion than to accuse an editor with the temerity to list an AFD of not reading policy. I'm no deletionist, but am working overtime on cleanup detail already and have no desire to research sources for the DJMax franchise; perhaps you'd like to do that. Miniapolis (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "디제이맥스" gets a number of hits on google news, so it looks like it's getting significant coverage in Korea. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language sources should be sufficiently translated into English to demonstrate that the source supports the information cited. Miniapolis (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources have been presented above. Furthermore, I feel like this article, which is pretty much a "series" article, should be kept so that we have something to redirect/merge some of the individual articles to in the future, should it be needed. While I think the series on a whole is notable, it could probably be argued that not every entry in the series is individually notable, but they do have their own articles, so this could be a useful merge/redirect target if anyone ever targeted those articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand the problem here. This is (to my knowledge) one of the most popular rhythm-action games in (South) Korea in its category. It also enjoys moderate success in Japan and USA. And even in EU where none of the DJMAX titles have been officially released to retail and players have to import them from (South) Korea, USA or Japan. It's also one of the few real competitors for Beatmania IIDX games on a market. About the verifiability... there are many sources which everybody can verify through the use of Google or Flickr for example. Not to mention the various Korean and Japanese sources. --Mikitei (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many reliable sources, then a few just need to be added to the article. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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