Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 21

< 20 July	22 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Only one keep opinion advanced a cogent argument, and it does not outweigh the delete opinions. lifebaka++ 01:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kincaid Kawānanakoa

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

Not notable. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally know His Royal Highness and Live in Honolulu. Since there is a Federal Bill and a state bill to give sovereignty to the native Hawai'ian people, the Ali'i Chief or King would be of relevance.

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, pretenders to non-existent thrones routinely are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, Jean-Bédel Bokassa, Crown Prince of the Central African Empire, and Reza Pahlavi are some good examples. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Donde - there's a policy on this somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not policy, but WP:OTHERSTUFF seems to fit... — Scientizzle 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:N with no claims of notability that are supported by mulitple independent references.--Michaela den (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sources indicating notability that isn't inherited. I'd argue to merge to his father's article, but there is no real content to merge into Quentin Kawānanakoa; it's probably not worth the WP:BLP hassle to even have a redirect. — Scientizzle 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and aloooha. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to offer a rationale? — Scientizzle 03:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, but the site "Hawaii for Visitors" DETAILS THE CLAIM in a way that makes it fairly clear that this is an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above noted page on the tourist site links back to Wikipedia; not a reliable independent source. The comment about "non-existent thrones" does not seem acurate. If I put up a web site saying I was heir the King of Eastern Carpathia, would that justify a Wikipedia article on me? The examples you give all have sources, at least in some sense independent. In this case, even the kawananakoa.com web site given seems defunct. W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is different than making up a throne for yourself. In this case, this person would be king if the queen of Hawaii had not been deposed. This is well known and documented, and not a case of making stuff up. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no question that the Kingdom of Hawaii existed and was notable, so there indeed is an article on it. I have done some work on it if you notice.. I was not the one who first used the words "non-existent" in this discussion. And if, indeed, there were independent sources that documented a claim, then it would be notable, as it is for the articles you cited. But the burden of proof is on the Keepers to come up with such an independent source. If the article does not cite any, then it should go even if you "know it". Someone could always create a new article in the future if he grows up and does make a serious claim. Quentin himself is much more likely at this point, since he was elected etc. but even his article could use more. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion How about merging this and other current hawaii royal family folks into a single article? Even if each individual might merit only a rather stubby article, the general topic probably is notable enough to get sufficient sources for a decent article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP as SK1 and a WP:POINT violation. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian astrology

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

This page is being nominated for deletion for -

Being created to avoid known controversial debate (NPOV content fork) on the Astrology page where it has been asserted that no change can be made without considering all sub-pages (see Talk:Astrology#Sub-pages_to_avoid_disputes.3F).
Using a Wikipedia article as a sandbox.
Violating Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability.

Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process for page deletion nomination Template:AfD_in_3_steps does not work for me. I cannot create a valid entry at the AfD watchlist by adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylonian astrology and, in the edit summary, Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babylonian astrology. Peter S Strempel | Talk 23:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this nomination page for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this editor seems to have lost his senses. I can only imagine it is because his proposal for a suggested rewrite of one passage in another article in the main Astrology page failed to find favour and it was pointed out to him that sections within the main astrology page should summarise the daughter pages it links to. No dispute, no controversial debate, only a reaffirmation that editors working there were aware of the need to bring the pages the main article linked to up to standard too.

Within the last hour he has proposed three major astrological articles for deletion:

Babylonian astrology

Hellenistic astrology

Horoscopic astrology

...and declared on the main History of astrology talk page

I announce my intention to delete all unreferenced content from this page within seven days. This is in line with Wikipedia principles about verifiable content. Wikipedia pages are not sandboxes for personal opinions, views or discussions. Please add necessary citations for every assertion made.

He knows there is a committed group of editors working in an organised manner to review all of this content systematically, and is being wholly unreasonable to target such major content pages simultaneously, knowing that they are closely related in content and likely to involve the interest of the same group of editors who cannot be everywhere at one time. What are his motives in trying to destroy so much astrological content like this so suddenly, when these are valuable pages which require attention not deletion? I suggest the page is tagged with the issue that concerns him, and that he adds 'citation requests' for any quote or comment he feels could be challenged and is therefore in need of citation. Zac Δ talk 00:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article definitely needs improvement. But being the oldest known form or astrology, and having played an important role in the history of Iraq/Middle East it may deserve its own article on basis of notability. If not kept it can be merged into History of astrology. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no good reason to delete this article. It is not really in bad shape. If the article requires more sources then they should be added. You don't just delete an article if it doesn't have enough citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Brennan (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (speedy keep if there is such a thing) The subject is clearly notable. If there is a problem with the article, improve it. On the face of it this is a frivolous AFD nomination. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SK1 – the nominator may have listed some reasons for deletion but literally none of them apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 11:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete based on consensus that article subject does not yet meet the General Notability Guideline. — Satori Son 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Young

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

Previously prodded and removed by article creator, then re-prodded, so I'm moving the re-prod rational here: Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Possible COI, given that the author appears to know the subject (having uploaded the "own work" image). The-Pope (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale - I'm the person who added the re-prod rationale (got mixed up between WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that as a published author with 8 books in print Laurie Young does meet your criteria and the issue is my lack of knowledge of how to format the information to show verifiable citations. Is there a simple,user freindly explanation please? I have included links to books newspaper articles and the web and am not sure what more could be shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) 06:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Help on citations is available at WP:REFBEGIN. The notability guidelines for people are available at WP:BIO, specifically, in this case, WP:AUTHOR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline is useful reading for what we are looking for - significant coverage (ie not trivial, mere mentions or presence in a list) in independent (ie not publisher/employer/self-published) reliable sources (fact checked, not self-published, neutral, not promotional). It can be very difficult for marketing/business writers to meet this, as almost everything related to them is promotional, but book reviews in reliable sources (not "anyone can submit" websites) help, or profiles of the PERSON, not just his work or being quoted for his opinion, in reliable sources help immensely. To make it clear, I nominated the article as a procedural matter, as you can't be PRODDED twice, and do not have an opinion either way. But the bottom line is this is an encyclopedia that should be used to record the notable events and people, not just as a promotional website for someone trying to sell books. The-Pope (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The accomplishments listed in the article would not be enough for WP:PROF, so I think we have to go with WP:GNG instead. But I can't find the independent reliably-published nontrivial sources about him that would be needed for that, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will add a citation from the Daily Telegraph newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph I assume that counts as a nontrivial source? Will also check re book reviews. Publisher is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wiley_%26_Sons . Several books used as course books on professional exams - where I first came across him. Books are not self-published promotional material. will try to add further detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — AUKmarketeer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Thanks for trying, but the Daily Telegraph item is a just passing mention of Laurie Young in an article about someone else. In order to certify Young's notability we need SIGNIFICANT coverage in multiple independent Reliable Sources. It's possible this man has gotten such coverage - as the author of several books from a major publisher - but I'm not finding it. Merely being a published author is not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RESUME, WP:SOAP, andWP:SECONDARY. Aside from being a prolific writer, subject does not garner independent coverage in any reliable sources to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Since the nominator is a sock puppet of otto4711, I'm going to close this. Anybody is welcome to renominate but as an alternative I recommend starting a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Law & Order task force about deciding which episodes merit standalone articles and merging the others into list articles. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mushrooms (Law & Order)

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

Delete - this article has existed since January 2007 with no reliable sourcing establishing that the individual episode is notable. There are no such sources. The "sources" that were recently added are single-sentence mentions in books of several hundred pages which establish who directed the episode and the identity of one guest performer but otherwise do not cover the episode. The episode is not independently notable. Its status as an episode of a notable TV franchise does not make this individual episode notable by extension. The article should be deleted. Calvin Grant (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of Otto4711 Worm^TT · (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hollywood Reporter described this as the top episode of season 1. It is covered in multiple books and so is notable. Warden (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where is this Hollywood Reporter article? Can you post a link to it, or to multiple sources that offer significant coverage of the episode? Easy to say they exist; where are they? Calvin Grant (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable episode--GroovySandwich 02:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is the top episode of season 1, and episodes serve as their own reference, as well as having notability for the fact it is in the first of 20 seasons, definately Keep. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an organizational matter, see List_of_Law_&_Order_episodes#Season_1:_1990.E2.80.931991. --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus in this discussion that his participation in the Pan American games merits a standalone article. However, I would recommend further discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Orenduff

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

This is a career minor league player who fails WP:GNG by lacking significant coverage in multiple sources that is not WP:ROUTINE coverage. While he participated in the Pan American Games, there was no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Baseball participants in Pan American Games that this qualifies for presumed notability per WP:NSPORTS as a "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" for the sport of baseball (unlike the Olympics or World Baseball Classic). This person seems to be a WP:Run-of-the-mill minor league player not notable enough for a standalone article.

Note that the consensus of the previous AfD was to "Merge" to Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players, but the article was restored when he was released by the Dodgers. If he was not notable before when he was on a team, he should not be notable now that he is not on a team. —Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider his performance for the U.S. National team at the 2003 Pan American Games enough notability for him to have a stand alone article. Also note that he was an All-American in college, a 1st round draft pick and spent some time on the Dodgers 40-man roster.. The previous afd resulted in a compromise merge, no consensus existed there for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a number of news articles about him from 2003-2004 but they are mostly behind pay walls so i haven't been able to access them. Spanneraol (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per my !Vote last AFD, since he represented the US in a major international competition (and won a medal). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to note that the lack of "consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)" about the significance of the Pan Am games consisted of one editor asking the question, me saying that I felt it was significant, and two other editors more-or-less shrugging their shoulders on the question. So if there wasn't a consensus that it was significant, there definitely wasn't a consensus that it wasn't, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have an established precedent that athletes representing their country at major international competitions are deemed notable. Whatever the discussion is about the quality of the competitions, the Pan Am games, as a continental area multiple sport championship is secondary as an international competition only to the Olympics. And as a medalist even in a team sport, the members of that team are notable by our definition. Case closed. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVAS, disclosing that all previous AfD participants have been notified about this new AfD —Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVAS, disclosing that all previous participants at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Baseball participants in Pan American Games have been notified of this AfD —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Does not rule out editorial merging, renaming etc. Sandstein 06:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lenny Skutniks

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

Non-notable neologism. Of the four references, only one (a self-published blog) actually uses the term "Skutniks", and that particular link is a 404. The rest are simply primary sources to establish that a particular individual was mentioned in a State of the Union address. The definition itself is troublesomely vague and over-inclusive ("notable people who are invited to sit in the gallery at a . . . joint meeting of Congress"). Badger Drink (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I can find some support for the term "Lenny Skutniks", there's more support for the term "Skutnik" in reliable sources. There's a Times article on them here and another one from ABC discussing them here. MSNBC cover them here. I think the article needs renaming, possibly to something like Skutnik (guest). We should then probably delete the "List of" article as a redundant redirect and point Lenny Skutnik towards the renamed article. Alternatively we could merge the explanation paragraph (minus the list of heroes) into State of the Union address. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: [1], [2], [3], there's use of the term "Lenny Skutniks" here and here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've heard this term used before. I do agree that merging isn't a bad idea. - SimonP (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism, no evidence it's widely used - not even in the given sources, not sure incoporating sources above would improve the article at all. Hekerui (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More sources [4], [5], [6]. The Congressional Research Service defines it here [7]. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, perhaps to List of State of the Union guests. Notable, well-referenced encyclopedic article with a silly name. Ma^t_chups 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per apparent consensus here and at AN/I, I'm closing this as a disruptive nomination. Anyone who would like to nominate it for a good faith AfD should feel free to do so after a reasonable interval. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guilford Native American Association

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

More GNAA padding. Non-notable, non-profit organization. Doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Most of the "sources" are merely trivial mentions of the organization. On top of all this, its only claim to fame is that it attempts to "assist Indian people in achieving social and economic self-sufficiency" LiteralKa (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Comment. The 40 Google Books search results helpfully linked in the nomination statement go back to 1978, so I don't see how this can possibly be related in any way to the GNAA. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by an editor (along with a few other articles) with the clear intention of creating other pages that use GNAA as an acronym. LiteralKa (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see extensive discussion of this group going back decades in the Google News Archive and on Google Books. This article has existed since 2005 and has been extensively edited since it was created. I see no need to delete it over six years later because of speculation about the intentions of its creator back then. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you say that like I presented it being GNAA padding as the only reason. That was merely to provide background on the article, not a reason. LiteralKa (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment. If you have some issue with association with some other subject, then removing the use of that acronym would be a simpler solution. And actually it was not present when the nomination was made. ~~I also wonder why did you created such associations?~~ Anyway, this assiciation does not look much notable, deletig would not hurt anything, it seems. - Nabla (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The associations were there when the nomination was made, as GNAA was a disambiguation page listing this as one of the ambiguous meanings. As for your assertion that this doesn't look very notable, that sounds like a weak delete vote (if you were planning on voting.) (Also, is English not your first language or something? It's getting kinda hard to understand you...) LiteralKa (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The associations were there because you created them.~~ - Nabla (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look again. LiteralKa simply moved the former contents of "GNAA" to "GNAA_(disambiguation)". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you for explaining without the snappy remarks, it gets so much easier to understand that way. I have striked the related comments above, so not to confuse readers. - Nabla (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for understanding. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are passing mentions, no significant coverage. Zalgo (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, only claim to notability is attempting to "assist Indian people." That70sdonna (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — That70sdonna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete claim to notability is weak, interest seems to be local only, and it's not relevant as seen by the lack of other articles citing this one. death metal maniac (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — two main reasons: 1. it's notable. 2. It's a bad-faith nomination to clear out the GNAA disambiguation. --slakr^\ talk / 09:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - why would the GNAA disambig need "clearing out"? LiteralKa (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You tell us - you're the one trying to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry, Guilford Native American Association, and Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica were created by Astronautics and Brian0918 due to their anti-GNAA agendas. Bad faith was what crammed the disambiguation page in the first place. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mentions do not an article make. LiteralKa (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references go beyond trivial, and Slakr is right to call bullshit above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout the nominator There are plenty of sources in Gnews attribiuted to the The Greensboro News and Record, The Robesonian, and a few articles in others such as The Mount Airy Times. Trout the nominator for doing a poor search, and asserting that the organization's goals are somehow unimportant. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jethrobot above - passes the notability guideline, if narrowly. This article may or may not have been created for bad-faith reasons; but even if it was, this AFD also seems to have been created in bad faith; and in any case, none of that matters. All that matters is that it passes the notability test. Robofish (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slakr and LiteralKa's massive clueless-ness. Diego talk 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, Diego. LiteralKa (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - You're free to think that is an attack; it may be, but yes, you are clueless, otherwise you wouldn't have nominated this article for deletion without any kind of foundation. I don't see you even tried to search for sources, when there are plenty outside. That is, in my opinion, to be clueless. You're just attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia, and for being the Director of Public Relations of the so-called troll organization you represent, you have a massive COI. Quit the project, for the good of everyone. Diego talk 18:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." LiteralKa (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then here's a suggestion: Do a better job at following WP:BEFORE and mind your WP:COI, because it will not help your case in making these nominations. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did follow WP:BEFORE, and all I found is trivial, passing mentions. There is/was a severe lack of significant coverage. LiteralKa (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 40 book references or so, news articles online, etc. The nomination is unsound given that there are clearly many-many references for this subject. snaphat (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete. While there are a lot of hits in GNews and GBooks, few of them are useful for building an article. Many of them are indeed passing mentions and annoucements of events. Also, the vast majority of the online sources are local. It would be handy if keep voters addressed these issues (content-poor refs, local refs), and maybe edit the article to reflect, before this nomination is closed. Christopher Connor (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The state of the article isn't relevant for the purpose of saying whether or not its subject is notable. All that matters is whether or not there is enough 3rd party coverage to justify its existence. Whether or not these sources are local is also irrelevant as Wikipedia has no policy regarding this (I assume by local, you mean published within the same state that the GNAA exists). Even if many of the references simply mention it in passing there are a number that do not, such as, Congress proceedings, An Economic Development Assessment for GNAA by the Office of Economic Development, Kenan Institute, UNC-Chapel Hill, and the NC publication mentioned by user Johnpacklambert. Those alone are more than enough references to keep the article. snaphat (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to justify having this article. It may need to have more included, although it looks like even the included sources are enough. The question is not are the sources included, used or linked to, but do they exist, at least when the argument is about an article on a real organization or group. When the discussion is focused not so much on "do we need an article covering this" but "does it make sense to have an article with this name", well then it is a different matter. This organization clearly exists and reputable publications that are not connected with it publish articles on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Univeristy of North Catrolina publication is probably the strongest source for keeping among those listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Honestly, this deletion seems to be motivated by the GNAA uber-controversy Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of Risk Analysis

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

Non-notable journal established in 2010. Article creation premature. After the article was de-PRODded, its creator added a statement that the journal has been published since 6 years in Russian, but its website does not show this. In any case, the absence of independent sources and apparent lack of indexing in any major selective databases mean that this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this AfD have a Russian-language counterpart? Roodog2k (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "Russian-language counterpart"?? --Crusio (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Russian-language Wikipedia, is there an article for this journal? I could not find one. The existance of such a page does not mean that this page should/shoud not be deleted, but may shed some more light on notability. But, the LACK of such a page may add strength to your argument. At this time, I see no fault in your reasoning for deletion, but want to gather more information. Roodog2k (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was what you might mean. I found the corresponding article and have created the appropriate interwiki links. As far as I can see, our article when it was created was a more-or-less direct translation of that article (and created on the same day by the same editor). The external links given there are at the bottom of the one link given in our article. I don't think this gives any additional info that is useful here. I don't know anything about the notability/deletion policies on the Russian WP... --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. From what I see, this smacks of self-promotion, which was my first thought when investigating this. I can't prove it, but it's very suspect. Roodog2k (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the points disucced above, I suspect that this may also failWP:PROMOTION, based on the edit histories of this article and the edit histories of its cohort in the Russian-language Wikipedia. Roodog2k (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Risk analysis and other related disiplines are not esoteric subjects with few practioners. It's found in computer science, business, engineering, finance, etc. So, an academic journal in this field would have to hold to the full definition of notability. Roodog2k (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Evangelos_Florakis_Naval_Base_explosion. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambros Lambrou (naval officer)

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

He wasn't an important or high-ranking officer and the only coverage of him is passing mentions as a result of being killed in the Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion. There's almost certainly no hope of expansion beyond a stub and he fails both WP:SOLDIER (the essay on notability for military personnel) and WP:ANYBIO (the Wikipedia-wide guideline for notability of people). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

Commander Lambros Lambrou was 1IC in command of Evangelos Florakis Naval Base, making him de-facto second in command of the Cyprus Navy with comparable rank to an Army Camp Commander (Battalion-level Colonel). I will endeavor over the coming weeks to source relevant and sourced biographical info as it becomes available. Regards Copperhead331 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonels don't get articles by default, either. the few articles we have on colonels are usually pretty exceptional colonels. WP:SOLDIER says that only general officers are notable by virtue of their rank alone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In agreement with Copperhead331. Head of nation's major naval bases. Scanlan (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bases? He was the commander of a base according to the article and all the sources I've seen and base commanders, ship captains, battalion colonels etc are almost never notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As currently written, The article would seem to be a BLP1E, in addition to the issues brought up by HJ Mitchell. Copperhead331 has a point, but I would argue that Evangelos Florakis Naval Base has had numerous commanders over the years, and not all of them could be "pretty exceptional Colonels". RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and doesn't meet basic notability requirements. Warfieldian (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, depending on sources. If there are reliable sources (including in Greek) which cover Lambrou's naval career and not just his death then keep. Otherwise if the references are just about his death then merge to Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion. Greenshed (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Subject of the article does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. As so far as the subject was involved in a single notable event, and the event itself is notable, the article should be changed into a redirect towards said event, and any referenced content from reliable sources can be merged into the event article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to redirecting. There isn't anything to merge, since his death and position are already mentioned in the article on the explosion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, depending on sources - Since prior to the disaster, Evangelos Florakis Naval Base was a major command in and of itself, i.e. Command of the Navy Base. In other words it was the logistical, if not operational, HQ, of the Cypriot Navy. That would make Commander Lambros Lambrou the head of a major command, one moreover which was practically annihilated in one of the worst (in terms of damage) peacetime accidents ever to involve a Western European Military. I would say that would make him notable, especially since he seems to have died in the line of duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.99.69 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But being the commander of a navy base doesn't make one notable. You haven't provided anything to suggest that the subject might meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. The accident in which he was killed is notable, but that has its own article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought he met criteria 4 and 5 of WP:SOLDIER, i.e. He was the head of a Major Command, and he died trying to stop a major disaster along with the other victims? 83.71.99.69 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - #4 is for people who held the highest office in their armed force and I don't see how he meet #5. I haven't seen any source that suggests he played any major role in the disaster rather than just happening to be there when the stuff blew up. If there is one, I'd be glad to reconsider. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lambrou can be considered to be a departmental head as per #4, since he was head of the Command of the Navy Base, one of the 5 major commands of the Cypriot Navy. You're right though about the need for more information to make sure he qualifies under #5. Though I'm wondering now if he also qualifies under #3, since he was in effect, if not in rank, a Flag officer? 83.71.99.69 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again (previously 83.71.99.69). Another point occured to me this morning. The Cyprus Navy Command, to which the Command of the Navy Base reported, consists of, as far as I can tell at this stage, the Head of the Navy, his office, and his staff. By at least some definitions, this would make Commander Lambrou also a member of the Navy's high command, since he was Captain Ioannides de-facto second in command. This would seem to add to the Commander's eligibility under criteria #4 of WP:SOLDIER. 83.71.98.198 (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered something that might partially undermine my own argument in that regard. The Cypriot Navy is also known as 'The Cyprus Naval Command' of the National Guard. 83.71.98.198 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. I've confirmed that The Cyprus Navy Command is a distinct entity. 83.71.98.198 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're starting to win me over. But do you have sources for any of this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, I've being trying to track down the original press release dealing with the Change of Command ceremony at Evangelos Florakis when Commander Lambrou took over. No luck so far. I did come across Lambrou's posthumous promotion to Captain however, and have taken the liberty of updating the main article accordingly. Hope that's okay with the rest of you? 86.41.243.17 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite his relatively low rank, his position as second-in-command of the navy makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - subject currently lacks "significant coverage" in WP:RS and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Redirect to Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion which is a notable event, and any useful information from this article could be included there. IMO there just isn't enough information available on the subject to write a stand alone article. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion Support for WP:SOLDIER is very weak (I disagree that #4 or #5 is fulfilled by the current arguments put forth. He was not in a top position nor has he played an important role in a significant military event. Also, The notability of the person seems to be for a single event, which isn't going to be enough on its own. Still, some of the information can be included within the event article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Does not meet the subject specific guideline and all substantial coverage is related to a single event. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Sammon

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

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously nominated for speedy delete. I deleted that tag, as it doesn't qualify, and am now nominating it for AfD to determine if this person has the notability to remain. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:MUSICIAN, and article appears to be a WP:COI written by his friend Phil Guy.. No independent reliable sources to demonstrate is notability. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Ohconfucius, [Guy] is deceased. Phil Guy did not write this article. Please review the provided links closer before commenting that the subject matter does not demonstrate notability. This does not violate any conflict of interest policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwphil (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Milwphil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP In response to an earlier suggestion to delete. The references include The Library of Congress, Martin Scorsese's 2 time Grammy Award Winning Blues Series, Allmusic (credits)-which appears on many musicians wiki sites, Jive Label Group (record label) for Buddy Guy's Grammy Award winning album "Living Proof" (again Marty is listed as a credit), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ Sammon has represented Chicago Blues in universities, high schools and middle schools which also qualifies under the Notability policy "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" — Milwphil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~KEEP~~ Sammon has been a member of over 2 musical ensembles that are notable Otis Rush(Cobra, Chess, Duke, Delmark, etc), Buddy Guy (Cobra, Chess, Jive, Delmark, Silvertone, etc), Phil Guy (JSP) and L.V. Banks (Wolf Records). Standard "...musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwphil (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Milwphil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I have struck your duplicate !votes. Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize for the multiple votes. Milwphil (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.56 (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've also made multiple votes both logged in and not logged in so as to appear to be two separate users. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I sent it to speedy delete because of CS7. There is no indication of importance. Being a lead singer doesn't give you importance. Being a manager, director, vp, or svp doesn't give you importance either. Reliable sources for notability were not provided at the time of the speedy and are not there now either. If we add to that the COI problem, as pointed to by Ohconfucius, it seems like I should have prodded it. Not everyone can have an article in wikipedia, and inapplicability of the Speedy makes people waste time at Afd, which should be used only for articles that have been around for more than a week.Divide et Impera (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has improved significantly and is full of references now which satisfy WP:BAND #6, #7, and #10. In addition, concerns on a probable COI seem to have dissipated. I apologize to the wikipedia community once again for hurrying too much to ask for a speedy deletion, when the article was not ready yet. My vote is final.Divide et Impera (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - he appears to be not more than a background musician. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bearian did not challenge already cited guidelines for Musician notability. The subjects discography proves he is more than a "background musician" (several releases and live performances on the radio), he has been a member of multiple ensembles of notability (which is referenced by appearances on Grammy award winning films/audio recordings, etc), he has been chosen as a local expert in his field by representing his art form in educational settings and produced documentaries (currently in production). He also co-headlined a tour in Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.121.70 (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian please provide supporting evidence per the guidelines. I agree with a "side bar" discussion with Divide et Impera, his appearance on Martin Scorsese's Grammy Award winning Blues Series should provide adequate evidence on notarity alone. See WP:BAND#10. Also, #6 and #7. Please respond, I'd like to consider all submitted evidence that would suggest otherwise. Thank you for consideration and attention to this article. Milwphil (talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I could not find any evidence from reliable sources that he even appeared as a solo musician on the Blues Series; also his name was not in several sources cited. I'm not saying he didn't actually perform, but I can't find any good source that says he did so. I am just asking for better sourcing before I support inclusion of this particular musician. I tend to be slightly more solicitious than the average Wikipedian, but not terribly so. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this article again, and come to the conclusion that I can't oppose it based on sourcing, because the soucing can be fixed under ordinary editing processes. I must agree that he barely passes notability. Weak keep. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: All the spa votes carry no weight so we are left with two established users depreciating the sources and Bearian initially voting delete and then going marginal keep after reviewing the sources in detail. That's clearly the decider here and for fairness I feel this discussion requires a solid analysis of the sources to resolve. So please could someone summarise the sources about the subject and comment on their reliability so a consensus can be drawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion these sources are insufficiently reliable for a BLP. There's a tripod site and various blogs that mention him, plus various more reputable sites that, when searched with CTRL+F, do not contain the search string "Marty Sammon". There's also this, which gives no indication of reliability, this, which mentions him for "some stellar organ work" on one track, and this, which says he's put out a live CD. Basically, that huge list of sources doesn't add up to very much coverage of Marty Sammon at all, and many of the sources have clearly been added in the hope of putting off good faith users from the long and thankless task of going through them in detail. The New York Times source is particularly egregious, because it would be quite indicative of notability if it contained what the article says it contains. It doesn't. This isn't a good faith, encyclopaedic biography, it's a puff piece. Also, I want my half hour back.—S Marshall T/C 06:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted every reference that doesn't include Sammon's name in it. After, this is a biography of him, I expect the sources to be about him and not some other guy. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. If we then take out the blogs, and then take out every unsupported claim, what do you think is left?—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the list at User:Michig/How to find sources for popular music articles be helpful? Bearian (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just did a Google news archives search ([8]) and a standard Google search ([9]) and got a mixture of trivial, crap, and other people named "Marty Sammon". I even excluded boxing, judge and referee from the search as there seems to be a boxing ref by that name. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the delete votes challenge his qualifying attributes. However, I can understand that the article should be improved. I do question why a couple of the references were removed (on the World Championship Piano site he is listed as a prior champion from 1994/1995). This contest has recognized for 36 years (see the Champions section). The link for Living Proof specifically listed him on the album. He was a member of 2 notable ensembles (Credits on the Library of Congress, PBS, appearances as an expert of his subject matter at universities, he also has several releases under his name, etc). I'm not sure that even if the questionable assertions are subtracted the entire article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milwphil (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement by S Marshall is presumptuous and adds no substance to the discussion: "..many of the sources have clearly been added in the hope of putting off good faith users from the long and thankless task of going through them in detail." Please qualify "good faith users." There is a suggestion in your statement that the author submitted the article as a "bad faith user". Is that your suggestion? Other individuals have responded with constructive criticism, which I responded to appropriately and have attempted to defend the notability of the subject/article. It is my hope that S Marshall's comments do not represent the collective Wikipedian community's tone. In the same regards, anyone can make unwarranted accusations of intent behind S Marshall's feedback (especially after emotionally discounting blog like comments as "it's a puff piece" "I want my half hour back"). The academic attempts to discredit the article by using Wikipedia guidelines should be considered. Please note there are valid references, some of which are included in accepted submissions on Wikipedia. Please note: Because there is someone else with his name (boxing referee) does not disqualify him.

Comment. Indeed I could verify under the list "Champions" that he he won the World Championship Piano in 1994 and 1995. The link needs to be researched, it won't appear as a separate url. In addition, Donde, since you are the nominator, you have already voted: with this vote you have erroneously voted twice.Divide et Impera (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I voted twice. My initial nomination was purely procedural, as a change from a speedy delete, and I didn't give my personal opinion on it originally. Later I did decide, and voted delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I agree that this is a "wobbler" and that thoughtful arguments have been made for deletion, I have to agree with Bearian and others who recommend keeping the article. When a sideman/session musician performs for so many years alongside musicians such as Otis Rush and Buddy Guy, I believe that they have reached a professional level of accomplishment sufficient that Wikipedia ought to have an article about that musician. Sometimes the cumulative effect of many accomplishments and many brief mentions in reliable sources adds up to notability Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. I know many people hate it when I fall back on "rule of reason" rather than the pseudo-objective standard of Three Glorious Sources from the New York Times as Decreed by the Great Philosophers in Days of Yore — but in this case, it works for me. Wikipedia is better with this article than without it, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Osmond

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

A musician. He has one self-released album that is sold via CD Baby. Can't find anything else except he is son of Jay Osmond, one of the Osmonds. Note: There is an actor with the same name, the son of Ken Osmond of Leave It To Beaver fame. Bgwhite (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search brings up few results for this individual; fails WP:MUSIC--GroovySandwich 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks any coverage in reliable sources. His one album appears to have been widely ignored. Not only am I unable to find any coverage about it reliable sources, I can't find any in unreliable ones either; just listings for sites that sell the CD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His own webpage/blog (I think it is more the latter) largely consists of fairly amateur drawings and does little to suggest that we would expect him to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Top 100 of 2011

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

I believe there was consensus that lists such as this are considered copyright violations. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best, this list would be simply a repeat of someone else's website.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold E. Glass

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

Ad-bio for a non-notable business man, created by a spam-only account. damiens.rf 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fails WP:Prof. Will have to find notability elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BIO, RESUME, and SPAM. I didn't find any notable sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sentences like "This allowed him to remain at the head of cost benchmarking innovation by introducing more progressive cost benchmarking tools." make me think this is marketing spam. In any case he appears not to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wikified the article to make it more readable, but subject does not meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. No independent sources other than subject's own website. Yoninah (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP-485

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

Seems to be an ad for a product? W Nowicki (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: certainly using other serial protocols to create point-to-point Internet Protocol transport links is useful. I was involved with one myself in the 1980s. See Point-to-Point Protocol for example. But this just seems one of many, not very notable.

I can make no sense of the diagram. It just shows a bunch of waves going down some kind of cable with buzzwords. Does not seem to have anything to do with any kind of "protocol". Not even sure if the “Conductive Media” technology is supposed to be a joke, or is serious? Of course another word for "conductive media" is "wire". It is hardly notable to send data on a wire.

Original creator of the article was User:Pcntechnology who never edited any other articles except adding a link to the company that claims the service mark on this, PCN Technology, Inc.

No citations or references given, just four raw urls. First is an ad for the "Wayne Connect IP-485" which seems the actual product name. Second is an advertorial for the Wayne Connect on a trade web site for convenience stores. Third link is dead, but seems a reprint of the "Wayne" press release. Last one is a blog with a posting that promotes the "Wyane". W Nowicki (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps should also add that a search finds a sailboat with model 485 by the Island Packet Yachts company named IP-485 that gets more coverage. W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDY (no independent reliable sources) and WP:RS (the cited sources all appear to be press releases). Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The figure is nonsense, and how do you get 100 MB/s Ethernet data over an RS 485 link? --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lerner

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

Non-notable individual, not even at the level of GNG. News archive shows a small number of sources, but none appear to be substantially about him. The COI and edit-warring on this article don't help matters... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was WP:AB from the start, a COI has made recent attempts to get it remotely closer to BLP standards difficult, and high quality, independent RS with significant coverage to qualify for WP:BIO have not been found. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 19:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep removing all of the links to notability, articles, speaking appearances, and then claiming that the article is about someone 'not notable'- sort of a self fulfilling prophecy, no? Why not leave them all on? Anyone who is a patent author, Ivy League MBA, public speaker, and business pioneer is notable, especially when multiple sources exist. The edit wars don't need to exist at all if you stop removing all of the notability edits. Are you notable enough to even be in a position to judge? Where is your list of notability? EditorCool777 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC) •777•[reply]

Delete I am not able to find any significant coverage of this person reliable, independent sources, so I conclude that he is not notable by Wikipedia standards. There are few passing mentions where he is quoted about the work he does, but those are insufficient to establish notability. The article started as an autobiography and has had serious problems with editing by single purpose accounts such as EditorCool777, who commented above. Sock puppetry and conflict of interest editing are highly likely according to my reading of the discussion on the article's talk page. EditorCool777 has resorted to edit warring to try to maintain a preferred version. This article should go now. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Cullen and nom. I also note that EditorCool777 is a single purpose account.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this autobiography. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blindingly obvious self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syncfusion

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

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Unambiguous advertisement for another back office software business. Article is essentially a product list, shot through with floridly non-neutral but deliberately uninformative text:

Comprehensive suite of Syncfusion's User Interface, Business Intelligence and Reporting components. Essential Studio Enterprise Edition features a high-performance WPF Grid, new Silverlight functionality, and Essential Reports....
Essential Studio Business Intelligence Edition includes OLAP-aware grid, chart, client, and gauge controls to help developers build WPF, Silverlight, and ASP.NET Business Intelligence applications....

Notability is not established by the uncited references, which are to internal sites, routine release reviews on tech spam-blogs, and press release based stories hosted at bizjournals; not enough to meet the business notability guideline. I found nothing better in GNews/Books/Scholar. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I can find lots of press releases but not significant independent coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to do a Google search and was frustrated at not being able to find any independent, dispassionate, non-press-release info about this company or its products. Without any such independent reliable sources, I can't justify an article for this company. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Aside from the consensus here, this is not even an article, it's an essay. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook under 13

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

Original research. It wouldn't be a plausible redirect to Facebook Ryan Vesey contribs 16:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. No material makes sense here for a redirect and while some its content is sourced, it contains WP:OR. Removing the material is just a content fork of the information on the Facebook article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above--GroovySandwich 20:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is someone's essay. The main article already contains the information about users under 13, so there is nothing to merge. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. All American-originated sites have to abide by COPPA, period, and this is OR leading to dead ends about how to get around it. Information is contained in the article and unless the law is overturned and replaced there is no debate to get around this law. Nate • (chatter) 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suppose we should have a IMDb under 13 as well? The article doesn't provide anything important than what could be say about any other website. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfriend and delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-beautiful

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Ryan Vesey contribs 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and probably not move to Wiktionary either. I'd nominate it for speedy deletion but I can't find appropriate criteria for this page. Rymatz (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per IAR. It's obvious that the definition contained in the article is in violation of WP:MADEUP. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowing in the middle of July Delete Agree with SoCalSuperEagle. We don't need to waste time discussing this here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 or A1. Hairhorn (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Foolishness. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn for redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson quan

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

~~Non-notable person. I didn't feel like A7 applied due to the statement that he is an accomplished editor~~ Ryan Vesey contribs 16:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into Nelson Quan. They appear to be the same person. Rymatz (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7).' The other article got CSD'ed per A7 while I was writing this. Rymatz (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) per Rymatz. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nelson Quan. New editor created two articles by mistake, and Nelson Quan has a little more meat on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nelson Quan per ten pound hammer. Ryan Vesey contribs 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cinderella_stamps#Political_and_propaganda_stamps. This was a difficult discussion to close as the article changed during the discussion, and opinions developed and shifted. I have taken note that as the article and discussion has developed there has built up a consensus to keep some of the material in some form. There have been suggestions that the material on designs in the form of postage stamps should be merged into Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps, and suggestions that material on genuine postage stamps which use images of anarchists should be kept as part of topical stamp collecting, perhaps renaming the existing article to Anarchism on stamps in line with Space exploration on stamps. I have also borne in mind the views that the sources for the topical stamp collecting are not very secure, and the view that the article as it stands is an insecure intersection of anarchism and postage stamps. There is an overwhelming consensus that the article as it stands is problematic, with 11 people asking for something to be done to it (and most of those asking for deletion), and only three people suggesting it can be kept. There is, as has been pointed out, a bit too much WP:Synthesis in the article for it to be kept. There are no sources at all dealing as a unified group with the assorted material found here. The search term “Anarchist stamp” has no accepted meaning, so that can be deleted, and material related to Cinderella stamps merged to Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps, while material related to topical stamp collecting is merged to Topical stamp collecting. I will do the merges, and will make the entire deleted article available on request to anyone interested in ensuring the merges have been done appropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist stamp

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria. Mentioned in very few sources (the two listed on the page being an out of print book about stamps from the Spanish Civil War generally and another book containing "16 portraits of anarchist luminaries - Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Goldman, Berkman, Herbert Read, Durruti, Bakunin, Louise Michel, Zapata etc - together with an essay by Colin Ward on anarchism and stamps, and an afterword by Clifford Harper on his own personal connections to the postal service"). I couldn't find any reason why anarchist stamps are interesting in a way that is distinct from stamps generally, or even that an 'anarchist stamps' is considered a thing. AutomaticWriting 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Not only does this article seem substantiated by multiple, reliable sources, the topic also seems notable in that it documents how anarchism emerged in a notable way that I think would surprise most people. On doing a book search, it seems that this term can be used very differently than the way described by the current article, specifically, as the impact of an anarchist movement. However, there are a number of other sources:

The Guardian article providing a great deal of in-depth coverage about anarchist stamps and their creators
Describes the tradition behind anarchist stamps
provides some examples of such stamps from Spanish anarchy
this book, mentioned by nom, specifically providing in-depth coverage of anarchist stamps
this book from the Spanish Civil War mentioned by nom, which unfortunately, cannot be searched.

The Guardian article is clearly the strongest here, and with everything else, I think this makes for a keep. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is really just the intersection of anarchism and stamp. Including the facts that some anarchists have collected stamps and that the US Post Office issued a stamp picturing famous author and philosopher Henry David Thoreau, whom someone thinks was an anarchist. The existence of any stamp that is itself anarchist in some way is not established. The Guardian article mentioned above is about an English artist who prints pictures of imaginary "post-revolutionary" stamps. They are not real stamps in any sense. Note also the the stamps from the Spanish Civil War seem to have been issued by the government, so hardly anarchist. Nor does the fact, mentioned by one source, that Russia (or the USSR) issued a stamp honoring Leo Tolstoy make that stamp anarchist. BigJim707 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are "real stamps" or not shouldn't be an issue here. They are still discussed in-depth using the subject name, and whether they are real stamps or not doesn't refute the notability of the topic. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. The sources all seem to be about "anarchists and stamps" not "anarchist stamp." BigJim707 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for usage in The Guardian. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It talked about an artist's "designs for anarchist stamps" not actual stamps.BigJim707 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether these stamps have postal value not, that's not a valid reason to delete the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. However the article is talking about pictures of imaginary stamps. BigJim707 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be any more notable than "flower stamps" or "lighthouse stamps" or any other kind of stamps. Admittedly I don't have access to the book with its essay by Colin Ward, but I don't see that the lead of the article, which discusses why an anarchist stamp is ironic, is based on any source. Even so, one source would not establish "anarchist stamp" as a thing. (The RAForum link is not a suitable source, as a. it appears to be user-generated and so not reliable b. seems to rely on the Ward essay, rather than being independent.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that RAForum is unsuitable as user-generated, as I can find no place to register for the website to add content. Also, we've established that The Guardian is not the only source.

Comment This archived French website documenting anarchist work also contains several examples and descriptions of anarchist stamps (for the page translated from French to English, see here. In French, the word for stamp is "timbre." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just going to copy/paste my comment from the article talk page, as it, I believe, establishes a good case for deletion: "The generally accepted criterion for notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." (WP:GNG) I don't think that standard has been met here. I would also point out that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being "a subject" is not sufficient to establish why we need an article on that subject. Similarly Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." AutomaticWriting 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you have not yet seen the new changes to the article, but your argument about why this page should not be kept per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not especially appropriate here. No one here has made an argument that this article should be kept because WP should have everything in it. The article is sourced, its notability is asserted clearly in the following ways:

Their historical, political use during the Spanish Civil War,
their use in labor unions,
the value of some anarchist stamps to stamp collectors, and
the fact that stamps have been produced recently and are written about.

All of this information is backed up by third-party, independent sources (or primary sources as necessary, such as actual pictures). I again fail to see why this article should be deleted, especially given my clean-up of the page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is was all over the place: an original essay on Anarchists as stamp collectors, List of anarchists on postage stamps, and List of things that anarchists might like to collect. Out of bounds delete, close call, and delete on those three components, respectively. If that means I'm recommending delete here, so be it. One MIGHT be able to change this to the second-mentioned, chop the hell out of it, and provide enough documentation for a save. I'm not holding my breath. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have cleaned up the page and have explained the definition of "anarchist stamp" using the sources available. I have also narrowed the scope of the article to information relevant to that definition. The information about anarchists as stamp collectors was obviously not relevant to the page and I have removed it. At this point, it would be difficult to call the current form of the article original research, as I've sourced everything appropriately. I've deleted list-like information (it wasn't sourced anyway). I am now advocating for a strong keep (that is, my recommendation has changed above,) with these new changes, because the article is no longer in a state of disrepair. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Topical stamp collecting is a world unto itself and I'm not going to pass judgment here. I'll strike some of my snark in the wake of a real effort to address concerns raised at this AfD. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been collecting stamps for forty years and have never heard the term. Don't just take my word for it – there's nothing in any of the major philatelic publications such as Stanley Gibbons, Scotts, Linn's etc. The article is largely original research, and the references do not support any of the claims. The creator seems to be renaming propaganda stamps (which is a widely accepted term).--Dmol (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also have been collecting stamps for forty years and have attended numerous philatelic meetings and read huge amounts of philatelic literature and I have never heard this term. This is simply not a recognised class of stamp among philatelists and they ought to know. This is a made up subject IMHO and close to being a spoof because it amuses people to connect stamps (usually issued by governments) and anarchism which is anti-state. At best, this is a possible section within Cinderella stamps in the section for Propaganda stamps as has already been indicated. I have checked four dictionaries of philatelic terms, including the latest by Stanley Gibbons and this term does not appear. Alternatively I would support a rename to Anarchism on stamps which would be a perfectly proper topical stamp collecting article, but there is no such thing as an Anarchist stamp. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the two comments above, but as someone who never collects stamps and finds the whole thing a bit weird. I think to justify the existence of a separate article on Anarchist stamps, some evidence would have to be provided that Anarchist stamps are considered a category of stamps in philatelic circles. I would support the proposal to merge whatever information has been gathered here into other suitable articles on stamps. AutomaticWriting 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is the point. If it is not a recognised type of stamp among philatelists (and it isn't) then the article simply can't stand in its present form. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Along with the two others above, I'm another long time philatelist who has never heard of this topic. It is certainly not recognised as a collecting interest by the American Topical Association whose main interests are here. The article appear to be a mix of some WP:OR mixed with a little WP:SYN that combines some postage stamps that individually have anarchist connections under an umbrella title. Incidentally I know a collector who collects "umbrellas on stamps" but that does not justify an article for that interest. If we keep this one then we can easily create numerous stamps article based only on the content, but as a stand-alone article it is not notable. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to move to something more appropriate. This isn't (entirely) appropriate for Cinderella stamps because some of the stamps were government-issued and had postage value. I agree that this is more appropriate for something like Stamps with anarchist themes or Stamps with anarchism. However, I disagree that the information is not backed up by sources. They are, and I put a lot of work into this and careful wording to ensure the article reflects what info the sources provide. If you're claiming this is WP:OR or WP:HOAX, you need to let me know what information is inaccurate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: grab-bag of loosely-related topics (stamps made by an anarchist in anticipation of a future government collapse, ~~official government stamps that happen to feature an anarchist~~, stamps issued and used by a labour union, that happened to be anarcho-syndicalist, during the Spanish Civil War), brought together by blatant WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official government stamps were also designed by well-known anarchist Clifford Harper. The scope here is not loose at all, and there's a consistent theme of anarchists designing stamps about anarchists. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Harper's stamps were "for post-revolutionary post" -- the "he made his personal contribution to the Royal Mail" bit is clearly tongue-in-cheek. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article again, you are probably correct (I've also removed from the beginning that they were government-issued based on your insight). But, why is it wrong to include stamps made for that purpose? It still falls within the scope of this kind of topical stamp. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That they would be considered a single "kind of topical stamp" is less than clear (portraits of anarchists versus anarchist slogans), and lacking a source -- the purported commonality appears more in the 'reason for stamp manufacture' -- and even there the differences are greater than the commonality (the mere shared political ideology) -- between the fanciful creation of stamps "for post-revolutionary post" and the pragmatic creation of stamps in the middle of a civil war, in order to keep some (presumably ad hoc) mail service running. This would be a little like lumping together Soviet-produced AK-47s together with some (communist) urban guerilla's home-made zip gun, and calling them Communist guns. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the articles author provide a sample of one of these stamps? Something official, stamps are produced by governments not by authors of books. A link would do. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the best I can find on this archived French website that is currently cited one the article. Some (not all) appear to have postage value. Also, I am stepping out of this AfD as I've said what I've needed to, so I will not be responding to further argumentation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One or more might have a placed here.[[10]] It would be the authors place to justify there placement within the article. The judge would be, perhaps must be, the many philatelist in the world. This subject needs some, several, many 'authorities" in the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the stamps shown on that page would be classed as "Cinderella stamps". The only postal use any of them could have would be local postage (which is another sub-section of Cinderella stamps), and even then only three of the stamps shown look to me to be locals; the others all appear to be propaganda labels. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be fair to say that there's a consensus forming around the idea that at least some of the information in the article belongs on Wikipedia somewhere, but that it doesn't warrant a standalone article? If so, we should start discussing mergers. AutomaticWriting 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If merging is the new consensus, I'm allowing myself to rejoin the discussion. So far, proposed mergers have been to Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps. Another possibility is to briefly describe this under topical stamp collecting. I would prefer the former, as its description seems to best capture the content in the current article:

...the term propaganda stamp is usually used to mean unofficial stamps produced to promote a particular ideology, or to create confusion within an enemy state.

One concern is that this definition isn't sourced to anything, but examples are provided. Regardless, what do others think of these mergers? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surmising that that's the consensus, since most objections aren't to the inclusion of the information in Wikipedia per se, but rather to having a separate article.AutomaticWriting 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not going to delete it then by far the easiest solution would just to change it to Anarchism on stamps as that would require only minimal changes. It would then fit in with Birds on stamps, Ships on stamps etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cinderella stamp, sub-section "Political and propaganda stamps" Daveosaurus (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are we going to put in the Cinderella Stamps article? As a matter of fact it has been established that there is no such thing as an Anarchist Stamp so it is either delete or turn it into a topical article as Anarchism on Stamps. We can't keep it because we can't have an article about something that does not exist. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge to Cinderella or topicals as there is nothing to merge. The existance of anarchist stamps has not been proven. It can not be merged to topical stamps as inclusion will always be subjective and not based on fact. The information in the article as it stands is POV and OR and I have alreaded voted for deletion.--Dmol (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is nothing to merge and I think the earlier summary of the consensus was wrong. The consensus actually is delete which I support, however, there is nothing wrong with turning it into a Anarchism on Stamps article as I am sure some stamps have been issued showing anarchist themes somewhere, or important figures in the history of anarchism, if others feel strongly that some of the content should be retained. In that respect it would be as valid as any other topical stamps article, although I am not a fan of topical collecting myself. Possibly that is what the article should have been to start with and what the creator intended? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps. As the topic is sourcable, how and what to merge can be discussed and accomplished through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been enough focusing and work done on this article that it has moved from "mess" to "meritorious" in my estimation. This is now a piece on topical stamp collecting, sources showing, which should be of use to philatelists. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The piece does need to be renamed, in my opinion. See Philafrenzy's comment above. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Last change: Carrite (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Anarchism on stamps. If the creator had used this title in the first place it would have been almost the same article and this debate would not have occurred. The fact that some of the stamps referenced are postal issues and some cinderellas is not a problem for a topical article either. The lead now reads Anarchist stamps are postage stamps created with images of persons or events representing anarchism so it is straight forward to adapt it from there. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a piece on topical stamp collecting, sources showing, which should be of use to philatelists, per comments above by Carrite, and I agree. The distinction between stamps issued by "states" (i.e. governments), and non-state actors is important in seeing why this article is informative, and different from stamps about other political causes such as socialism, issued by governments. The rename suggestions have merit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I closed this as Delete because I believed the Keep arguments were mainly weak, but having been asked to look at it again I note that some Delete votes were cast while the article was in a poorer state; therefore I have reopened it and will leave it for someone else to close. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Powers (comedian)

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

Comedian of questionable notability. Speedied three times already (twice at John J. Powers (actor, comedian), once here) but one editor keeps recreating, with little change each time. References are all primary sources. Google searches show no evidence of Emmy award outside Powers' own promotional material - in fact, a Google search for "John J. Powers" comedian brings back less than 70 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has over 10,000 fans. Also I took away the reference to the Emmy until I can, and I will, substantiate it. There are 2 of his associates on this site that have never been challenged. I feel you are picking on me. I have rewritten this completely now.Jkinzler777 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011

I have taken all the comments about the previously deleted article and improved this article. I also contacted two of the administrators to let them know I'm giving another go. Thank you all for the work you so. Jkinzler777 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Jkinzler777 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that two of John's friends and peers have similar articles still standing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Kilmartin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Ability. Jkinzler777 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Jkinzler777 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Could whoever is suggesting all the citations identify themselves so we can discuss it? I think that is too much citation.

First off, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, your "rewritten" is practically identical to the prior deleted versions. As for Laurie Kilmartin, she appears to be notable, with writing credits on major network shows, along with legitimate press coverage. Permanent Ability appears to have some notability due to some of its members and a connection to George Clinton. However, as that first link should have informed you, this is not relevant to a discussion about Powers. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, I see you are making this personal. I just wanted to write a good article, not be offended by you. I hope others will join in the conversation. --Jkinzler777 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "two of John's friends," Permanent Ability, survived a deletion discussion so it may not be fully valid to say that they have persisted without consideration for their notability. You can see who made changes to an article with the "view history" tab. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated Comment Comedians don't appear to have an appropriate category for deletion sorting, so the above is the best I could do. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Related Comment -- Delete Arguing that he has "over x number of fans," using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type arguments and taking this personally is not supporting a case for keeping the article. Current sources are PR pieces, self-submitted content, the fact that he is a dating advice columnist, and bios on the places where he performs. These are not sufficiently independent and do not provide evidence of notability for entertainers. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I have removed the last two paragraphs of the article that someone had asked citations for each sentence. Perhaps by starting small we can build this into a better article. Thank you Mike and Jethrobot for you valuable comments. --Jkinzler777 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue my efforts to get this into Wikipedia, starting with improving the citations which in turn will hopefully prove he is wiki-worthy. Thanks again to all. --Jkinzler777 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject appears to lack adequate coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish a basic level of notability. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know how much credibility to give this article. A prior version contained the statements "He was born September 1st, 1982 in Amityville, NY. ... John began his comedy career in Poughkeepsie, NY playing to crowds from the sixties and seventies." [11] Apparently the crowds had been sitting there since 1969, waiting for the headlining performer to be born. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whilst the Keep !votes are in the majority, a number do have quite weak rationales and border on WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, there are enough well-argued comments on both sides that no consensus is a reasonable close, I believe. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Peterborough

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

This is a plane/bus/trainspotting article. The content of the table itself is largely unreferenced and is not encyclopaedic content - it belongs Wikitravel and/or Wikia, not here. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plane?! Trainspotting?! What are you on about? References can be sorted out, just need some time. Adam mugliston Talk 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is in a kind of middle phase where the references are still being collected and the formatting sorted. Rcsprinter (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid reason for deletion. The list is in better state than when it was last at AfD, with more sources. Although it's not completely referenced yet this is not a reason for deletion. If it were unreferenceable then that would be a reason for deletion, but as it's partly referenced then this is clearly not the case - anything that can't be sourced can be removed per normal editing, not deletion of the entire list. Formatting can also be improved, but that's not a reason to delete anything. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is most unlikely that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources will ever be found for this material. The article fails General Notability Guideline, Notability of Standalone Lists guideline, Wikipedia is not a Directory, Wikipedia Stand Alone List Guideline Wikipedia is not a Travel Guide and Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. If this sort of material is kept it is always liable to become outdated and a source of misinformation if editors concerned lose interest. Even if we have legal indemnity against any unfortunate consequences of providing wrong data we have a moral responsibility to avoid doing so, not to mention the potential damage to WP's reputation. It is not just a case of not liking it as there are sound reasons for not keeping it.--Charles (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously mentioned on a different AfD, I update the lists at regular intervals. Adam mugliston Talk 20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is about you. You might get run over by one of your precious buses next week.(I hope not though).--Charles (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I just remind you all quietly at this point of WP:PA? Rcsprinter (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that extremely unlikely event would happen, which I doubt it will as I am very careful when crossing the road, you can then delete the page, although I'm sure there are people who would take over. Adam mugliston Talk 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that editors may not always be around for whatever reason is not a personal attack. Rcsprinter should strike through that comment.--Charles (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find he certainly should not strike through that. Saying someone might not always be around is not a personal attack, I agree, but suggesting someone could die or be very seriously injured in the near future, is extremely rude and a personal attack. Adam mugliston Talk 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Results 1–40 of 735 for List of bus routes in. I believe concensus thinks it is encyclopedic. The bar is not as high for lists as it is for the Articles to which they link. Navigation aid for a different method of navigation. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That search shows only 550 hits for me and your search is very poor as it returns every page on wikipedia which mentions or redirects to a list of bus routes - use the prefix: or intitle: search verbs to such as this to give more accuracy in your result (in this case closer to 90) and to guage consensus examine the results of a search limited to "prefix:Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion intitle:List of Bus Routes" where you will find that consensus is generally to delete, not to keep. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it too and I got over 115 actual lists of bus routes, so I think they are quite notable and as already said, the standards are lower and GNG may not always apply (as possibly in this case) and per WP:5P, no one has to stick to all policies and guidelines. Adam mugliston Talk 06:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you did that, I'm hoping that you discounted the 30 Odd that were created either by yourself or RCSprinter? That's right; about 1/3 of the articles you're using to justify "consensus" were created by 2 editors of which yourself are one? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of bus routes is not a directory. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a directory why does it have a section of notes about the routes which would only be of interest to someone wanting to use the routes?--Charles (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether they are encyclopaedic or not might be debateable, but they don't make this a directory. The way forward when an article or list contains some material that may or not be encyclopaedic is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to discuss the matter with other editors on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hear ducks quacking.--Charles (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Eh? Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Beagel (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That guideline references 8 types of directories, the only one with possible relevance is number four "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." and it's clear from the description associated with that entry that this detailing of the public transport of a large settlement is not a directory. The article would be better if it included historical as well as current information, but that is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That entry's description is not exhaustive (hence it starts with "For example") but the examples it gives do mirror the situation here; A list of a TV station's programmes rather than a prose article discussing the station's programming, a list of a company's patent applications rather than a prose article discussing it's research activities, a list of Bus routes in a town rather than a prose article discussing how bus transport has affected/been affected by the town? In previous AfDs on lists of bus routes,assurances were made that NOTDIR would be complied with and the articles rewritten as prose - there has been no movement in that direction and indeed the small number of authors creating bus route lists (50% by only 4 editors) have continued with little notice of the advice given to them at AfD leaving non-notable, unreferenced, unencyclopeadic lists. That consensus for deletion has not been reached before is testament to these lists' status as fancruft rather than their usefulness or benefit to the project. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Umm "In previous AfDs on lists of bus routes,assurances were made that NOTDIR would be complied with and the articles rewritten as prose" ??? Why SHOULD a 'List of ...' be rewritten as an prose Article? Your talking about 2 different things that can exist side by side? Its Apples and Oranges and has NOTHING to do with why this 'List of' should be deleted. Honestly, I dont see how WP:NOTDIR can be brought into this conversation. The nearest thing on that Policy is the mention of 'current schedules', which this list does not have. If your going to make any sort of a comparison, please make it to a 'List-class' article ... like List of power stations. There is very little difference to that sort of List. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a world of difference between power stations and bus routes. Power stations are major civil engineering projects which are bound to be notable. Bus routes on the other hand are rarely notable. Open topped tourist routes in London or engineered guided busways yes but otherwise generally not. A list should only exist alongside a prose article if the components of that list are individually notable.--Charles (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, according to what some people said some time ago, individual bus routes aren't notable and so, they are put into a list. So they are in the list, because they're not indvidually notable. Adam mugliston  Talk 10:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Putting a bunch of non-notable things in a list doesn't make them collectively notable - which brings me back to my bus/train/plain spotters comment. Wikipedia is not a place for anoraks - that's why Wikia was established. This content simply doesn't belong on WIkipedia. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's your opinion, we'll see how many people actually think that. Adam mugliston  Talk 11:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As has been mentioned in many of the previous discussions, lists of bus routes are comparable to lists of tram routes, rail routes, etc, all of which are nearly universally accepted as notable. I've never understood why some editors are so vehemently against bus routes, nor why they insist on citing WP:NOTDIR when it gets pointed out every time that it's irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you say it is irrelevant? Within the guidance in WP:NOTDIR - WP:NOTGUIDE states that travel guide content belongs at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A transport-related list is not a travel guide. That's why. Adam mugliston  Talk 14:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Indeed, if you compare this list to actual travel guides for Peterborough (e.g. [12],[13]) you'll see this isn't one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There goes that duck again. Quack! Quack! I fail to see how an underdeveloped Wikia page can be cited as an example of anything and the other is just a collection of links rather than a real guide.--Charles (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I hope you're aware of what WP:DUCK points to, and consequently that you just accused an admin of six years with over 36,000 edits of sockpuppetry on the basis that he agrees with the position of some newer editors. Did you know that percentage-wise you have over ten time as much crossover with Stuart.Jamieson as Thryduulf does with any of the editors at the AfD? (It's clear that you aren't the same person, I'm just using this as an example of why your logic is nonsensical.) Perhaps the reason so many of these lists survive has something to do with your repeated failure to assume good faith with anybody you disagree with, a tactic well known to lose the support of neutral editors. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not link duck and I did not write WP:DUCK. Anyone with a modicum of common sense will know that I was referring to "If it quacks like a duck etc." in relation to theb article looking remarkably like a bus travel guide. If you do not strike through your unjustified accusation of my making a personal attack I may well take this to ANI.--Charles (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alzarian has no reason to strike through that (why do you keep asking people to do that?), as it was a polite note, to let you know about how duck could be taken. A bus travel guide, would contain a full or more detailed lists of stops and a timetable. This doesn't. Adam mugliston Talk 21:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, so you were applying the duck test to content... as WP:DUCK specifically advises shouldn't be done. As for striking through, where did I accuse you of making a personal attack? I suggested that one way of interpreting what you wrote was as an accusation of sockpuppetry, which isn't even similar. The personal attack came later, where you suggested that I didn't have a "modicum of common sense" in your last post. Take me to ANI if you wish, but the odds are against you: about 30% of ANI posts lead to a WP:BOOMERANG, and 40% to no action. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing appears to have changed since the previous nomination. Since no further rationale for deletion is offered, I will repeat the reasoning I gave last time. The content clearly is encyclopaedic, as we have numerous "List of bus routes in..." articles. Most English counties have one e.g. List of bus routes in Essex, List of bus routes in Derbyshire. Peterborough being a unitary authority is equivalent to a county in terms of control of the numbering of bus routes, so it should have it's own article. An analogy would be Bristol which is also a unitary authority and has List of bus routes in Bristol. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:SAL do not mention buses or anything transport related, while WP:NNC clearly states most lists do not have to satisfy GNG. Adam mugliston Talk 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just like the last afd, this is a perfectly valid standalone list of routes of a major bus system in a major city. Bus routes are integral parts of the workings of a city and that is very encyclopedic. I see "WP is not a directory" quotes frequently in bus route nominations but there is actually nothing in WP:DIRECTORY that bans list articles, nor list articles of bus routes. This isn't a "repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and this list is very discriminate. I also notice the nom and the delete voters are simply stating lists of bus routes are unencyclopedic in general and not making a case to delete this list article of this specific city's bus routes, yet again they haven't touched the List of bus routes in London List of bus routes in Manhattan or the like which one would imagine are much more colossal violations of encyclopedic content to those who don't like bust list articles. --Oakshade (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London has been nominated twice, but there are two things that would discourage me from nominating again in the short term;

Its already sourced to reliable secondary sources (which none of the other city, county or county towns are or can be) this makes it a notable subject unlike the other Bus Route lists.
Currently many of the routes are blue linked which per WP:SAL is a valid navigational use of a list article. A series of AfDs to establish the notability of those route articles should take place before the list its self is taken to AfD.

If any of the lists were capable of getting to a standard where notability of either individual routes or the list as a whole then there would be no need for an AfD. Yet time and time again, excuses as to why these lists dont have to comply with our notability guidelines, or why these lists are not directories (despite WP:NOTDIR #4 Wikilinking to a definition of a directory as any database of information which is more frequently read than updated - which is exactly what these lists are.)

Other projects exist which are better fits for this kind of material, but this material does not belong in an ecyclopeadia - try wikia or wikitravel. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought many people reading the lists is a good thing. And buses don't change daily or weekly and rarely monthly, so there's no need for it to be updated more frequently than read. Adam mugliston Talk 10:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any part of your statement actually stands up to scrutiny:

Surely every list article on Wikipedia is more frequently read than updated? List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire, a featured list (selected at random), certainly is.
There is a widespread consensus that most individual bus routes are not notable, which is why articles that list them don't have hundreds of blue links - many of the ones on the London list actually redirect back to the list. Not that navigation is the only reason to have a list - many lists contain information that is notable collectively but not individually (List of minor planets: 25001–26000 for example).
I disagree that "none of the non-London lists can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (paraphrased from your comment at 10:53 today) - this was asserted at an AfD a few months ago (I can't remember which one) and it was quickly proven to be false. WP:BEFORE asks you to search for sources before nominating an article for being unverifiable, have you done this? Cambridgeshire County Council do not operate this service and they don't have any regulatory function for buses in Peterbourgh unitary authority, so I think it's clear that they are a reliable secondary source that verifies the information relating to that route. That took me 1 minute to find on my slow internet connection, so perhaps you'd like to retract your incorrect assertion?
Why would wikitravel want an encyclopaedic list about bus routes in Peterborough when they already have a travel guide that is far more useful for their target audience?
Just because a Wikia site exists for a topic doesn't mean that it doesn't also belong in Wikipedia - the existence of http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Main_characters doesn't mean List of Star Trek characters doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
"If any of the lists were capable of getting to a standard where notability of either individual routes or the list as a whole then there would be no need for an AfD". Actually, the notability of a list of bus routes in a sizeable, coherent geographic area (such as Peterborough) is clear - it's exactly the same notability as the lists of railway lines, stations, tramways, etc are in areas that are served by them. There is no deadline, and if people didn't have to keep defending the notability of the lists against the same arguments (proven incorrect each time) then they would be able to spend more time improving them.

Additionally, would you care to explain why this list is unencyclopaedic (I've shown that secondary sources exist, so don't bother with that argument) rather than why lists of bus routes in general are not notable. The latter has been clearly shown not to enjoy consensus every time it is brought up. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all lists are more frequently read than updated, the difference between the list here (And similar Bus Lists) and lists like List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire and List of power stations is that the latter two are not simply databases - both you and Adam focused on the wrong term in that definition. Lists on wikipedia should either serve as fully featured articles of a notable collection whose elements may (or may not) be individually notable or they should serve as a navigational device - they should never exist simply to copy or create a new database hence we have notdir and hence it applies here as this is just a simple database (much as you all might want to wikilawyer around notdir).
The London Links redirect back to the list because of a cull which removed many of the non-notable routes and redirected them back to the list however removing individual notability does not make them collectively notable.
This was never proven to be false at AfD by anyone other than those wishing to keep - and neutral parties at the RfC disagreed that the sources given were secondary. There are two options here either a) Cambridge council is repeating verbatim content from a primary source which does not make it secondary as it is still the original primary source just repeated verbatim by a third party. or b) Cambridge council has compiled it's own database of bus information which makes it an independent primary source but still a primary source. For a Secondary source there has to be "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." that hasn't been shown in any of the sources presented at any of these AfD's and claiming that they secondary shows a clear misunderstanding of how sources are used in research. Without this there is no notability for this or any other bus route list article, by contrast Railways, Trams, Highways by being massive Civil Engineering Projects; generate vast quantities of secondary sourced material that is easily presented here.
Show me Encyclopaedic content within the list ( I still don't see it) it is a database that I have yet to see repeated in any Encyclopaedia (even Pears which is the most likely to include list like information of this sort) If wiki travel don't want it then it looks like you're limited to wikia but it's worth trying them first.
That is still a notable subject so deserves to be in wikipedia, a quick search reveals tons of books discussing the subject - however if something is not notable it should be removed from wikipedia and placed on wikia like thes lists of Bus Routes.
It's clear to you and a few others like you and the time period between challenges is regularly more than a month during which time no improvement ever occurs - with the same editors creating more of these lists (when challenged recently on the fact that one of the lists was unsourced the editor responded with; "no-one told me this list had to be sourced" despite having participated in several AfD's for other lists where sourcing was brought up as an issue.

In short this list in unencyclopaedic because it is not notable (having no secondary sources despite your claims) it forms a database of routes rather than an actual article failing WP:NOTDIR, it lists all travel route information with no consideration of which routes are notable failing WP:NOTTRAVEL, I see no evidence that these databases are useful to readers (in comparison to a properly written prose article about the bus network in Peterborough) and it is not useful for in-wikipedia navigation so it fails the Common selection criteria of Wikipedia:SAL, Also per WP:PRODUCT if these bus companies are notable then the routes hould generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy (in which case the list should be one of that company's routes not geographically broken down) If the company is not notable then the route should not be included unless the route itself has enough notability to create a article. Do you want me to go on? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where not just an Encylopaedia. Tell what printed encyclopaedia, would have policies and guidelines printed in it. Or what one would allow humorous content in it. Or, most importantly, one that allows anyone to add content to it. We're more than a basic encylopaedia. We include many other things, that would have no place in an encyclopaedia. So, why have you got such a problem, with this very small proportion of Wikipedia, that doesn't disturb anyone and compared to other things that don't need to be here, takes up hardly any space? Why do you consider trams, planes, trains, boats to be encyclopaedic and not buses? Every single train route, even one that is not operational anymore, has it's own article. Yet, if I want to create a list of bus routes in a particular area, you want to delete it and I'm not even talking about having an article for every bus route. So, what have you got to justify that? Adam mugliston Talk 20:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a mistake Adam, Our policies and guidelines are not printed in our Encyclopaedia, that's why they are retained in a separate namespace along with user content and humorous content. Please don't mistake my intentions either; many train lines may become notable because of coverage of the civil engineering behind it or the history of it - this does not make every service(route) on that line notable and we do not cover every service(route) on every line (even where services overlap on the same line) let alone individual trains. So comparisons with the train system are very difficult to uphold - the closest would be the assertion that the roads on which your bus routes run are notable but the routes themselves are not. For instance try searching comparable terms "Edinburgh Train" "Edinburgh Tram" "Edinburgh Bus" the first two return swathes of engineering, archaeological, Historical, News reports and Sociological documents on each of the systems. The latter returns some casual mentions in guidebooks and a rare local newspaper mention of a single route disruption - the routes have not been noted in any substantial way by any substantial work so we do not consider them a notable subject and we should not have an article on them outwith our coverage of Lothian Buses and First Edinburgh (which are independently notable). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we do not cover every service (route) on every line" - Yes, we do. Every single service is accounted for somewhere (in many places usually) on Wikipedia with its frequency. And how come, all train stations (even ones that only get 35 people using it a year) are on Wikipedia, yet a bus stop (which gets 10,000s of people a day), is not? Bus stops also get relocated, services change there. You're right, there aren't many sources on buses, but then we research it well and the information is here, easier for people to find. Why are buses so much worse in your mind? We have every, aeroplane service here, every tram service (with all stops and frequency), why not bus? Adam mugliston Talk 07:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT - I know that our article on my local train line only mentions the line and the construction of a recent connecting line, Not detailing which routes use the original line, and which use the new connecting line. Nor does it detail the express routes with a reduced stop frequency so I find your claim that "Every single service is accounted for somewhere (in many places usually) on Wikipedia with its frequency." to be a broad generalisation at minimum and possibly a blatent falsehood. Equally I should point out that for a regular frequency day service (with hourly night service from 1-5am), you would still have to have a minimum of 120 passengers continually using the stop every 15 minutes to meet your 10,000s claim which while plausible doesn't happen at any stop in the UK (possibly a bus station, but such a station should be notable in its own right.) As for your last question - it's the wrong question ask why don't buses routes get the same coverage in any other media? Why have the BBC created several travel series about rail journeys and none about bus journeys? why for every "Speed" does Hollywood make a dozen "Unstoppable"s? Why are children fed a diet of Anthropamorphic train series such as Thomas and Chuggington but Anthropamorphic buses only ever play supporting roles in TV shows? If you can draw a sociological trend from those questions, perhaps you can understand why researchers and writers have failed to generate the same reliable secondary about bus routes that exist for tain lines? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof no.1 [14]

Proof no.2 [15]

Every train station has an article, with all the services calling and passing there with its frequency - no need for me to give links for that. As for busy bus stops, you really think any bus stop in Piccadilly Circus doesn't get 10,000 people a day? This is not based on any statistic, but as that I have been to London many times, I can assume: Let's use the stop on the north side of Regent Street, for buses towards Trafalgar Square etc. 11 day services use that stop. On average buses run 8 times an hour, meaning that that stop recives 88 buses an hour. Onto every bus, on average about 20 people will either get on or off. That's 88x20 = 1760 people an hour. Now daytime services run about 17 hours per day, so 1760x17 = 29920 people a day. 8 night services use the stop. These run on average 3 times an hour each, giving 24 services an hour. These services won't get more than 8-10 people using the stop per service. So 9x24 = 216 people an hour. Night services run for 7-8 hours a night. 216x7 = 1512 people a night. Now, add the two figures, 29920+1512 = 31432 people using the bus stop every 24 hours. I know these aren't particularly accurate, but I can't be far off. If you still don't believe I'll take the liberty of actually analysing every bus route stopping to give you a very accurate number, but reading the complete analysis could take a long long time. So tell me, how come a bus stop that 31,000 people use a day is not notable enough, but a station with 40 people a year is? Adam mugliston Talk 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great you show two examples and extend them, claiming that not only does every station article in the whole UK but every station covered on Wikipedia, even though we have plenty of articles that do not do this. Just in the UK I can think of Criccieth_railway_station, Edinburgh_to_Dunblane_Line, and Stirling_railway_station,_Scotland do not do this though there are probably plenty more. Also while you are right about the number of buses through Regent Street an average of 20 is a high turnover based on buses that hold around 45 seated passengers that means at least 25% of the seated capacity will get off and be replaced for every bus that stops at that stop - while this might hold true for some buses during a short while at peak times it isn't going to hold true on average and again I ask for evidence that 120 people actually use the stop during every 15 minute period of the day - this could be requested from Transport for London through FOI. Transport for London's own statistics suggest that averaged per route/stop less than 850 people get on/off at any single stop in any one day. That would make it 6-7,000 for Regent Street North on a single day at most and averages to only 3 or 4 people getting on/off each bus that stops there - but you can make the request if you want to prove me wrong. Either way a station that 40 people stop at is notable because researchers and historians have written works about it - a bus stop that could have 1,000,000 stopping there a day but unless people have actually made note of it in reliable sources then it's just a post in the ground with a sign at the top - possibly with a plastic/metal leanto attached. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction: the BBC have made some programs about bus routes. This documentary about London Buses route 31 and this episode of Excess Baggage about Swindon's route 49 last year spring to mind. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes individual programmes do exist (as they also do about trains, and Trams) but my point was generally the media is less interested in the bus as a form of transport (which is probably a shame as there are probably equally interesting stories to tell), even newspapers tend to make only passing mention of substantial bus network reorganisation but will heavily report on a new rail link or tram network being constructed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have serious concerns over the reasons for raising this AfD, and the behaviour of some of those supporting it. As has already been noted, it was nominated for deletion only four months earlier, by Charlesdrakew, and no stronger or even different rationale for deletion has been provided than that occasion. More concerningly, this current nomination came exactly two minutes after Simple Bob intervened in an edit war on the article about colour schemes, where Charlesdrakew had already reached 3RR. Disagreements about colour schemes are not a good reason for frivolous AfD nominations as a form of retaliation. More concerningly still, the attempts to demean the article authors as "anoraks" (a derogatory term - look at a dictionary) or as "trainspotting" or "planespotting" is unseemly and not appropriate for a collaborative editing environment - trains and planes are not mentioned in the article at all, they have no relevance. Further, this comment could very well be seen as a personal attack, and at the very least its tone is entirely inappropriate. Responding to an expression of concern about it by demanding that expression of concern should be struck, followed by threats that "I may well take this to ANI", is an indication that Charlesdrakew at least has lost track of acceptable standards of behaviour. Replying to other editors with farmyard noises, as Charlesdrakew has also done more than once, is another hint that all may not be well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farmyard noises?--Charles (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Demiurge was referring to this comment, where you do indeed respond with "farmyard noises". Worm^TT · (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I had forgotten that. I don't really think of ducks as a farmyard animal, associating them more with ponds and rivers. He did say more than once though which I am pretty sure is not true. My attempt to introduce a little humour into the debate was wasted on the people here.--Charles (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be your idea of humour and not the fault of people here. Adam mugliston Talk 09:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frivolous AfD as explained above. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) makes clear that standalone lists are acceptable; this is clearly not a directory, and it is (partly) sourced. There are also very serious concerns about the motivations for the AfD and the behaviour of those arguing for deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD closed on "No Consensus" rather than "Keep", as such no Stronger or Differrent rationale needs to be provided as the effect is similar to normal relisting in order seek further consensus on the raised objections - WP:BEFORE is specific about checking that the raised objections were addressed in the previous AfD as they were not in this case, there is no issue. Bob was not involved in the last AfD and is well within his rights to question the existence of the article independent of the colour issue. wikt:anorak is not derogatory, and trying to present it as such is clutching at straws, it is slang and means someone obsessed with a subject but not as a term of offense (I use it often as a personal show of pride in my own knowledge/abilty) Having regularly had to deal with Bus Spotters in my line of work I appreciate that they do exist, but I also understand that for others plane/train spotter are more recogisable terms for transport fans and should be seen in the nomination as comparable to buses. The comment is meant to identify this list as one of limited general interest I'm not going to comment on the in AfD behaviour of any participantants but leave that up to the closing admin to consider alone, but I will say that your delete rationale is questioning the behaviour of all editors who vote delete and that may be seen as a personal attack.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Demiurge 1000 and WP:5P. Per 5P, we do not have to stick to all rules, as they can be interpreted in many ways. My interpratation of for example WP:NOTDIR, doesn't have anything to do with buses, but for others it might. Adam mugliston Talk 07:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've spent the last few days reading up about these bus route articles, from the AfDs closed as "No consensus" earlier a couple of months ago to the recent VP discussion. There does not appear to currently be any consensus regarding these articles and there appears to be a small group of people pushing for them to be deleted. I feel I should challenge a few of the salient points here.

To my reading, these articles do not fail WP:NOTDIR as they are not directories. They do not include full lists of streets served, or all stops. You could not use this to look up times, schedules or as a substitute for information from the bus company.
They certainly do not fail WP:NOTTRAVEL. This isn't information you would find in a travel guide, which would include recommendations, prices, times, regularity and reviews of the service. It's quite simply not a travel guide at all.
Per WP:Five Pillars, a summary of Wikipedia's most important principles, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but also a gazetteer. This means that it should include information about places and their infastructure, such as bus routes.
The notability guideline we should be concerning ourself with is WP:LISTN, which states that the list should be notable as a whole, the items need not be. There is more than one secondary source on this article which discuss the topic, so I think it does pass notability.

It is important to evaluate the articles on a case by case basis, though nominating so many in one go and not grouping is not helpful. I'm also unimpressed by some of the borderline personal attacks and certainly uncivil comments I've seen on this thread. I ask that due consideration is given by all parties to attempt to diffuse the situation. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question above you claim "There is more than one secondary source on this article which discuss the topic, so I think it does pass notability." Did you actually check the sources? [16] is about national transport strategy and only makes passing mention of Peterborough, [17] (and associated pdfs) is about national transport strategy and provided passenger statistics about 12 routes in Peterborough there is no depth of coverage from which notability of all the routes could be drawn - not only that the source doesn't appear to support the statements it used to reference. That leaves two passing mentions in local press about one or two routes. There are no secondary sources here that suggest this collection is notable by any definition of notability that we use on Wikipedia specifically not by LISTN or CORP (if routes are taken to be a service provided by a bus company). At the same time I disagree with your assessment of a directory - If I look at the directory in an office block it can range from giving me the name of a business and what room its in to a complicated listing giving floor, section, room number, telephone number, what business sector they trade in, etc. To say that this is not complex enough or detailed enough to form a directory suggests a false concept of what a directory is, WP:NOTDIR may give examples of more detailed directories but it also links to a definition of a directory that is simple which this list is. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "directory" you seem to be using defines every list on Wikipedia, and as you are not claiming every list on Wikipedia should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR you're going to need to find a definition that actually discriminates between those lists you want deleted and those you don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no - every list on Wikipedia does not fall into this criteria - Specifically featured lists are expected to be composed of Prose so if they reach that standard then they would not fit the definition of simple databases, as are other Prose articles on multiple subjects such as List of minor characters in Dilbert. Similarly any article that serves another encyclopaedic function such as Navigation, Disambiguation, and Categorisation can be excluded as they are not article content. Once you exclude those sort of lists the aren't many left, but you then have to exclude those that are spun out from prose articles such as Discographies and Filmographies which exist only where they are WP:UNDUE within the article on the artist and they exist solely to detail content from the parent article. The end result is very few and the regular reason for deletion at AfD of lists of non-notable Wind Turbines, Hotels, Cinemas, and Bus Routes. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of a directory (which is similar to Wiktionary) is a complete (or attempted complete) listing of data, for the express purpose of making information easy to look up (eg a phone book or a bus time table). I wouldn't call these articles directories any more than I would the other lists on wikipedia (for example Filmographies or Discographies), as Thryduulf points out. It's much closer to a stand-alone gazetteer listing and if it can be shown to be notable as a set then I'm certain it should be included in the 'pedia.

As for the sources, The Times is a national newspaper, which is discussing a pilot scheme trying to get people to use more buses, including the Peterborough area. A government report, which is about national strategy, but discusses each area individually. And two local reports discussing the Peterborough bus routes. I'd say that's 4 sources which are discussing in more depth than just mentioning. What's more, I have a hunch (though no evidence) that specialist bus magazines, which I know exist, probably discuss the different routes - not sufficient on it's own, it is worth noting. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good you point out Filmographies or Discographies because on the whole policy is to include these lists within the biography of the artist (as we do with lists of products/services in relation to corporate entities such as Bus Companies)we only spin them out if their inclusion in the parent article is detrimental to that article (as happens for artists with prolific careers) as such I would have no problem with route information existing within the operator's article just not as a standalone directory.

The pilot scheme was to reduce car use and while increase Bus transport was part of that the article itself is focused strongly towards walking rather than Bus transport hence the title "Feet, Feet, Feet" and the focus on the increase in walking (greater than the increase in bus use), then we have the report - even if it did discuss all the routes in Peterborough as a collective group (it doesn't just a small subset of the routes) does any single study alone (particularly where the study focuses on the locality in order to draw conclusions about the whole nation) give notability to the sector it studies? This study for instance also discusses Cycle Routes within Peterborough, walking routes within Peterborough, Car sharing within Peterborough, School Buses within Peterborough all of these could be considered to be gazetteer material (yet I only know of one specialist gazetteer that covers Bus routes where cycle and pedestrian routes are more likely to be found in general gazetteers) if an article about footpaths in Peterborough comes to AfD, would you vote the same way for keeping it, based on this same source? Out of interest, do you know why is it that we have so many of these lists for English Counties and towns but have nowhere near as much coverage for the rest of the world generally (although exceptions exist) only ever covers major population centres - in fact I can only see the UK counties/towns/cities and two lists of Estonian Bus Routes (Tallinn and Tartu) that have metropolitan populations of less than 1,000,000 - all other bus route list articles are at least over this which just serves to highlight how these articles stand out. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derry Hill United FC

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable youth football club, thus failing WP:N and WP:V. PROD was removed without explanation. Delusion23 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable club. Giant Snowman 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the original author has left this note on the talk page of the article: Delusion23 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand the terms of notability and verifiability and am seeking your advice in meeting these elements.

The football club has been in existence for ten years and has served many 100's of children and families over that time. The club is the largest organisation within this community. Derry Hill Utd is one of only five football clubs within Wiltshire who have achieved the FA's independently ratified quality mark of Charter Standard Community Club.

Members of the Club frequently receive FA and community awards for their work enhancing the well-being and experience of young children. The Chair is regularly contacted by BBC Wiltshire Radio to comment on a number of topics; children's football development, parental behaviour and support, community volunteering and support.

Please offer advice on whether the above helps address notability/verifiability."

Comment - In its current state it gives no indication of notability whilst reading the above however i am inclined to believe that it is possible with sources that show the above could indicate that may pass GNG but only with major improvement and Reliable sources with out that it should be deleted. Im not saying it will just that it could with major improvements. It is a non notable club so would never pass football inclusion guidlines so would have to be notable for another reason Warburton1368 (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shame I spent my time trying to understand Wikipedia and putting the article together. A real bug bear of mine, wasting one's own time in the pursuit of others benefit. I won't be investing even more time in such activity. That's another free resource Wikipedia has just lost to build it's empire. I'm done, delete as you see fit. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crox uk (talk • contribs) 08:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies if you mistook Wikipedia (an encyclopoedia) for a company that gives out free web hosting for small/amateur sport clubs regardless of notability. I think you're looking for Pitchero. Delusion23 (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Canada. causa sui (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Consulate-General, Buffalo

AfDs for this article:

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

These two consulates don't seem to be covered significantly in independent reliable sources. (Speedy renominated as per closure of previous AfD.) ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Canada as this particular consulate does not have independent notability. I'm pretty sure that's how we've handled embassies/consulates in the past that fail notability criteria for a stand-alone article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TT added the Monterrey consulate to this nomination after I added my !vote. My opinion above applies to both the Buffalo and Monterrey articles. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment Interesting nomination here that made me think long acctually about which way this should go and what to do with these pages. I dont beleive they should be deleted outright for sure and they could have already been redirected by the nominator at anytime. In my opinion these page would fall under standard alamnic entry for an encylopedia and should be kept - but purhaps they could be merged together or a new article along the lines of List of Canadian Consulate-Generals in the United States or something along those lines which would be able to outline each of them considering the lack of detail they all have. This would leave the list page open to expansion. I would be willing to make the page a reality; let me know if anyone thinks this is a good idea. Outback the koala (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kuyabribri. I note that this article has no independent sources, so presumably fails per WP:INDY, WP:RS, and WP:GNG. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kuyabriri and Richwales. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Maethordaer (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for reasons given by others, but merge and redirect to Canada – United States relations#Canadian missions in the United States and Canada–Mexico relations, respectively. These are more specific destinations than the List of diplomatic missions of Canada that has been proposed above as a target. Both of my two proposed destination articles would benefit from additional information on the responsibilities of the individual consulates general, whereas the list-article is not set up to receive additional content. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Music Festival

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

The page was apparently created as an announcement of a (then up-coming) music festival. It cites no third-party sources, and gives no indication of notability. A search for news sources found none. A search of the web found numerous pages by the festival's organizers, sponsors, or participating bands, but none independent of the festival. Cnilep (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google is a funny thing. The "find sources - news" link above finds three announcements of the festival from 2009, though I found none by searching Google News archives directly. I still don't think that three mentions establish notability, though. Cnilep (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced.--Xyz or die (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see announcements but not coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keldine Hull

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

Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR and WP:FILMMAKER, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable WP:CREATIVE. asnac (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources, I didn't see any sources stand out on a Google and Yahoo search.SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smuggling Duds

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

Non-notable company. When performing a Google search for "Smuggling Duds" the only hits related to the company appear to be advertisement and self-promotion. I see little to no independent coverage of the company or its products. TreyGeek (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable company. The company has a European and US design registered product and helps solve a big problem that is of interest to the public. Bennit3b (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011

I believe that Bennit3b (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in this discussion. Comments made by them suggest they are associated with this company. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bennit3b's assertions, while possibly true, do not create notability. Simply having a registered patent, or registering a company, does not mean a company meets WP:CORP. There are simply no reliable sources (either with the article or elsewhere online) that support's this company's notability. Singularity42 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:INDY. No independent reliable sources; I couldn't find any new sources in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note that Unscintillating's point about notability is on-target. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August Gebert

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

Article provides no clues of notability. Google test only delivers 406 hits in all languages. German WP has no article about him. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read and follow WP:BEFORE and let us know that there are insufficient refs at Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News archive before nominating a bio for deletion. Please do not cite the number of Google hits you found (whether large or small), because Google includes many nor-reliable sources and mirrors of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, man, stop with you bad faith comments...
- You warned me already for getting flak, nice that you give it yourself. In my opinion an article must show notability, not external sources. It is up to the original author to give evidence of notability, not for newpage-patrollers to check if an article is maybe notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is what I said in bad faith? You launched a number of ill-conceived AFD noms in a short period of time, which ignored the guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Nothing good can come of that. It is most definitely the job of an AFD nominator to check for sources which would contribute to notability, If you disagree with that, then try and get a consensus to change WP:BEFORE, rather than ignoring it.Edison (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profiled in Revolutionary refugees: German socialism in Britain, 1840-1860 by Christine Lattek, pages 95-96, and in Exiles from European revolutions: refugees in mid-Victorian England by Sabine Freitag. Cullen328 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator, please note that the Article namespace checklist at the new page patrol procedure calls for new page patrolers to follow WP:BEFORE. It goes on to say "If the article is unreferenced or poorly referenced, you may be able to improve the article by adding better references." Thank you for your consideration. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Before is not mandatory, sorry. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that WP:GNG are met. Coverage appears to be insignificant, and there seems to be no way to produce a biography of the individual from the sources presented so far. I would say this even deletable as a WP:CSD#A7 speedy, as membership in a revolutionary organization is not a claim of notability. Failing deletion, redirect to Communist League would also work, and keep all the essential information in this article. —Kusma (t·c) 07:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources cited by Cullen328 above and the source showing in the footnotes. That's three mentions in the literature, enough to provide verification for this stub article. Certainly room for improvement of the piece. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. With due respect to Cullen's research, the two books cited give this person only a brief one-sentence mention, not a "profile" that I could find - and that sentence is in virtually identical wording, indicating that one book probably used the other as a source. A few of his letters to Engels turn up in archives [18] [19] but that's it. Not even close to "significant coverage". --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but MelanieN's assessment of the coverage in Revolutionary refugees: German socialism in Britain, 1840-1860 by Christine Lattek is incorrect. Lattek devotes 150 words to describing August Gebert on page 96 of that book, after a brief initial mention on page 95. The entire section can be read on Google Books - it's not behind a pay wall. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Sources on google books are scant, and the best ones are in German, but they hint that he may have been locally influential in the 1848 revolutions. In my book this amounts to borderline notability. I could see the case for deletion, but I don't think the article is incorrect or damaging to the encyclopedia. Them From Space 05:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep. His notability is now evidenced by the sources. Were this an "up and coming" figure I would say that he still needs proof of enduring notability; but, being a historical figure, he likely has recieved more coverage that we haven't been able to find. Them From Space 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)2011 July 21[reply]

Delete. It's a case of "what's to keep?". There is no notable content in the article itself. Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence that the nominator looked at the 32 Google books found from using the search [Gebert, Willich, Schapper]. The Google snippet from Exiles from European Revolutions states, "The most successful journey was undertaken by August Gebert of the Central Authority, who assembled nearly thirty sympathisers in Magdeburg for three days..." Revolutionary refugees: German socialism in Britain, 1840-1860 By Christine Lattek p. 96 states that Gebert was active in the Communist League in Switzerland in 1848, where "he argued that all had the right to 'an equal part in all activities, and equal rights to everything nature and human industriousness produce, that no one can idle at others' expense, but each has to contribute to the benefit of the whole'.¹⁴ Gebert fought with the Besançon corps in the Imperial Constitution campaign. Expelled in April 1850, he moved in with Willich on his arrival in London...meanwhile chairing the CABV's Whitechapel branch." The CABV was the German Communist Workers' Educational Union. Soon thereafter, Gebert was involved in expelling Marx and Engells. Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion the article should proof the notability of the subject, not research elsewhere. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BEFORE says, "Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability..." WP:N says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."
  - WP:BEFORE says, "Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy (WP:DEL), which explains valid grounds for deletion. Some pages should be improved rather than deleted." WP:DEL says, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases."
  - WP:Editing policy states, "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia..." Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It also states that it is not mandatory... Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per refs found by Cullen328 and Unscintillating. Edison (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that an article does not make a claim of notability is an assertion against content. Content policies are not generally involved with deletion policy—deletion criteria exist if the entire content fails the content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), or the entire content falls into WP:What Wikipedia is not. The common misconception regarding the claim of notability comes from one of the speedy deletion criteria, A7, but A7 makes it clear that WP:Notability is a higher and different standard. WP:Notability for a topic exists independently of both the existence of an article on Wikipedia and the content of such an article. Unscintillating (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzyology

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

WP:HAMMER Shirt58 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't strictly a HAMMER case, as there is a title, but there is no definite track list or release date, and the sources are a blog and a Youtube clip. This is too early per WP:NALBUMS: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." JohnCD (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's more to say for sure, but WP:HAMMER is enough to get us the right result. causa sui (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRL September 1998

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

Unreferenced WP:Listcruft. Proposed deletion contested without comment by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related articles, for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - as overly detailed trivia. A day by day account? Really? -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all TRL is surely a notable show, but there is absolutely no need to detail every single month of its existence on WP. If there are specific shows that are notable, they can be merged to the main page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#STATS. The list isn't notable neither in the context of the show, nor in the context of the artists mentioned. Rymatz (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I think this may fail WP:COPYVIO. This article is a word-for-word copy of another webpage, format and all. If it doesn't the above arguments still have merit. Roodog2k (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Marini

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Rick Marini. Was deleted previously as a non notable bio. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases, blog spam and merely trivial coverage or mentions.

This is one Part of a long history of Multiple sock account Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Rick_Marini_related_Spamvertizing

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" and Self-promotion is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be the most substantial, independent source supporting this BLP article. The majority of other articles appear to be about the products, not about Marini. A search on GNews brings up similar articles, reviewing the products, not the person, like this blog source from Forbes. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocío Prado

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

For one of the "most acclaimed dub actors" I couldn't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources - can't even find her on IMDB. The-Pope (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I attempted to verify some of this information on the page. I found this listing on Anime News Network with some of her voice roles, but I don't think this is a valid source. Going to official pages for some of the notable shows listed, I couldn't find any way to verify this information. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- Beagel (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISRO-Devas S band Scam

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

The article appears to cover a potentially controversial government contract from India; there are, however, no references provided to support the article, which is (if incorrect) inherently defamatory. Moreover there is no indication that this is anything more than a news story; while it is noted that there is a Parliamentary investigation, Wikipedia does not exist to speculate or presuppose - if it can be shown that there is widespread coverage, or the investigation later raises this event above the level of a mere news story, we can have an article. Until then, there is no indication that it is anything more than a standard, albeit slightly shady, contracted undertaking between a government and a private party. Ironholds (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title is very problematic. It isn't Wikipedia's job to mark something as a scam in the title. If the closing admin decides to keep this, it is absolutely vital that it is renamed to something non-defamatory. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be based on a news article. If some sense can be made of it, and if we can find more sources, perhaps we can call, the wikinewsies! --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly transwiki; Wikinews isn't my department). The best I can tell (which isn't all that perfectly; reading this article gives me the feeling that there's some sense somewhere in there, if there if I can only just find it, but no matter how many times I read, I can't), this is a narrative of an ongoing news story. No evidence of encyclopedic value, and not even any real context provided to use in building some. In addition, Tom Morris makes a good point about the article title being problematic in and of itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG: although the article has references, they do not provide the "significant coverage" required to demonstrate notability per guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Four of the seven references are to the subject's own personal blog. Her main "claim to fame" seems to be that she received brief (and somewhat limited) national media attention for Tweeting about her miscarriage as it was happening. She has published one book, but even it doesn't seem too notable, as it is barely in the top 300,000 for sales on Amazon.com.
In the "Works" section of this article, it lists:

Yahoo! Finance - hasn't published anything there in about 3.5 years
Boston Globe - hasn't published anything there in a little over 3 years
Bankrate.com - a search of the site returns no results for "Penelope Trunk"

Her only other apparent bit of notability is that she briefly (one season, 18 years ago) played professional beach volleyball under the name Adrienne Roston, but her career appears to have been pretty non-notable.
There's no small number of people these days who have blogs with small to moderate readerships and/or brief, unremarkable athletic careers. Is Wikipedia going to have bios for all of them?
--Entrybreak (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did a little more research on her. She has also written some fiction under the name Adrienne Eisen that she first self-published to the Internet, and then published in book form through a vanity press. My feeling is that this still doesn't bring her up the level of notability that warrants a Wikipedia bio page, thus I stand by my vote to delete.

--Entrybreak (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one independent secondary source reports only on her tweet WP:ONEEVENT. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO for lack of secondary sources offering significant coverage. Msnicki (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author and columnist, 760 Lexis/Nexis hits. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is her column currently being published, other than on her own website? --Entrybreak (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know and I'm not sure how that's relevant. If being a columnist is significant to her notability, the fact that it's in the past or present is immaterial. Gamaliel (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the guidelines can I find a provision that says that simply being a published author or a columnist is sufficient to establish notability. Lexis/Nexis hits are like WP:GOOGLEHITS and are also not useful. To establish notability requires reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS and there aren't any beyond the WP:ONEEVENT coverage of her tweet. Msnicki (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC and other notability criteria, can't say there is much independent coverage of significance.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - doesn't matter if she publishes anything currently, previous publications count as well; published a second book recently; popular blogger and columnist and made a number of TV appearances and publications; according to page stats, an average of 15-20 people view the page every day, which means she is being googled for and presents some interest. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the guidelines can I find any support for a claim that any of this means the subject is notable. See WP:POPULARPAGE for more on why page stats are not useful. Lots of people write two books, lots of people blog and lots of people appear from time-to-time on TV. But without reliable independent sources offering significant coverage, none of that is sufficient to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horribly written self promotion. No notability. Self referencing/primary sources. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Quality of writing in an article, or lack thereof, is not grounds for deletion. If people have a problem with that, then it can be edited. Likewise, the article might be out of date because it was deleted contrary to policy in 2009 until it was recently restored. Therefore, it simply needs updating. Moreover, notability is not temporary. It should be noted that most of the negative comments in the 2007 AfD discussion are no longer relevant. There are now lots of verifiable independent third party sources about Penelope Trunk, and she is certainly notable. She's a published author; Forbes named her site one of the top websites for women in 2011[20]; she is cited in and is a contributor to several books[21]; and has no shortage of Ghits[22]. Of the press coverage of her, there were significant pieces about in the New York Times[23] and The Guardian[24] (the topic relating to Trunk in the latter article garnered a great deal of coverage by major news outlets at the time).Agent 86 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Singleton

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Startigenix (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Sources given are trivial mentions. Google searches provide nothing of significance. noq (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Startigenix (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given were links to a blog and several music videos, neither of which fit WP:RS, so I deleted them. Article fails WP:BIO as there is no coverage by reliable sources aside from casual mentions. Rymatz (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article currently contains no sources at all. I just added a {{prod blp}} tag to the page, since if it survives AfD, it may still be subject to deletion per WP:BLPPROD. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prosimos

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

Ephemeral project. Most of the article devoted to a discussion of the current state of the problem, reasons why this project should be done, etc. Most of it seems to be original research or, at best, synthesis. No reliable third-party sources about the project (most "references" in the article are about other subjects and don't even mention this article). De-PRODded by article creator, who commented on my talk page that "this is a preparatory action, so its impact can not be assessed right now, but in years to come after several more actions and outputs", which violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL. In the absence of any evidence of notability: delete. Crusio (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holy moley, this is one of the longest unreferenced articles I've ever seen. Although there is one primary references here, the nature of the content in the WP article seems to be largely unsubstantiated by the primary source. As noted by the nominator, the article IMO is a case of WP:OR. Also, the creator's assertion that we should be waiting for years is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. WP can wait without the article and see if it becomes notable, thank-you-very-much. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per nom. May become notable in the future, but for the moment manifestly fails WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be packed with original descriptions WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYN. Also it seems to be full of material not clearly pertaining to the topic Prosimos. And, again all this appears to be original material not derived from sources, but more likely from someone's self-knowledge. Furthermore, the creators/editors of this article have stated this will be signifigant in the future, but may not be considered signifigant now [25]. The website seems to indicate this is merely a proposal that could direct pertinent research efforts. This seems to contradict WP:CRYSTAL. Also this article is severly lacking in independent, reliable, third party sources. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Should be brought individually to AfD, or just boldly merged, especially as at least one of the characters is clearly not independently notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Kibre

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - three non-notable fictional characters from a defunct TV series. There are no sources that establish that any of these characters are notable. Two of the articles have had sourcing requests for over three years, but none will be forthcoming because they don't exist. Sources that do exist merely mention the characters and are limited to such things as "Bebe Neuwirth, who played Tracey Kibre on Trial by Jury" and don't establish notability. Calvin Grant (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some leeway for having a page for Tracey and there are articles found talking about her. Case in point People Magazine on this character (the ADA) and the DA from Law & Order. [26] There are also more recent articles that mention the character plus do Wikipedia the added honor of a link to this page. Why turn down free publicity?[27]
It should also be noted that TV Guide also has pages of info on this character's actions in episodes.[28] What this really needs is somekind of expert on this show to fill in the detailed story on the character. Silent Bob (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of these supposed sources are exactly the sort of passing mentions of the characters that I noted in the nomination and they do not establish the notability of the characters. The People article is a brief review of the series that mentions the Kibre and Gaffney characters in a single sentence each and make no mention of the Salazar character. The second source, an article about Barry Bonds, mentions the Kibre character in one sentence and makes no mention of the other two characters. The TV Guide source is a single-sentence plot summary of an episode of the series. They establish that the Kibre character exists but they existence and notability are not the same thing. What these really need are some kind of sources that offer significant coverage of the characters and no such coverage exists in reliable sources. Calvin Grant (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Tracey Kibre is notable, having been noticed by sources such as The Cambridge guide to American theatre and the New York Times. The nominator seems to be on a disruptive deletion spree vs Law and Order and gives the impression of being a banned sockpuppet like Dalejenkins. Warden (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "noticed" is not significant coverage in reliable sources. "Oh look, a thing!" is not the standard for inclusion. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. And I do not appreciate being falsely accused of things. Personal attacks serve no purpose other than to expose your own weaknesses. Calvin Grant (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all nom is fatally flawed in that it presumes "defunct" matters. The current state of a TV show does not change the fact that it was broadcast on a national network, hence notable, and is entitled to a list of (not individually notable) characters. Thus, if either of the two individuals are non-notable, they should be merged to the general character list rather than being deleted entirely. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree 75% with what User:Jclemens has said. I think the pages should stay as they are. But also on the basis that User:Calvin Grant is an alias of many other "users" seeking notable pages mostly in the Law & Order (franchise) to be deleted. There will be a full investigation into why most pages are being "put up" for deletion for 'nobility'.--SVU4671 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a no-brainer even though the nominator has been blocked. Whether or not "defunct show" is a compelling argument, it was not the only argument made: the dearth of reliable secondary sources which discuss these characters in any significant depth certainly is a compelling argument. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Whether it be a show that went for 20 seasons, or in this case 1, the characters are notable as well as important. Tracey Kibre, for example, not only apeared on TBJ, but also made special appearances on L&O and SVU. And that's barring the fact that the nominator who has been blocked as a SP, has obviously some conflict with the L&O Franchise, nominating many episodes for deletion, as well as redirecting. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any real-world sources which cover Tracy Kibre in significant detail. I'm sure she's a very interesting character for people who like the Law and Order franchise, but if that doesn't translate to significant non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources then there's no need to have a separate article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, my vote hasn't changed, regarding your opinion. There is no time limit on collecting notable sources. And also for the fact of the misplaced nomination for deletion - nominator had a clear COI with all L&O episode articles. Maybe s/he was a CSI fan. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, so it doesn't really matter whether your "vote has changed" or not. The deletion rationale was that there are no secondary sources to establish notability. If none are added then that rationale is obviously valid, especially given that Wikipedia's Law and Order fans are aware of this AfD and have a whole week to add sources. "No time limit" is not a reason to keep stubs with inadequate referencing as separate articles: the correct solution here is quite obviously to merge to the list article, and if sources are found in the future it can be re-split. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Clean bad faith nomination by Sock master. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the nomination is tainted by its having been made by a sock, the deletion argument is cogent. Procedural close here would be actively counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The only solution to a sockmaster avoiding a block is to completely ignore what they say. Otherwise, blocks are meaningless and we as a community have no ability to to ensure standards of behavior. All edits made by a sock as part of a block evasion are inherently illegitimate and must be reverted without regard for the actual content. All nominations such as this must be closed ASAP, regardless of the merits of the argument. Blocks that aren't enforced are the same as no block at all, which the community has deemed a recepie for chaos. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out to Jclemens recently here, this is not a correct reading of policy, which does not automatically equate "sock" with "ban, revert on sight". Looking at it, that might even have concerned the same sock as in this case. We do not unperson people lightly around here, and it would be a waste of time to close this AfD procedurally only for it to be inevitably re-filed when sources do not get added to it in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tracey Kibre as some effort has been made to establish notability through third party sources. Merge the other two into main article unless notability can be demonstrated. Articles can always be separated at a later date if someone is willing to research and write them properly. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all AFD is not the venue for this. Character articles are almost always merged if not independently notable, not deleted outright. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They actually were merged, and this was undone. Historially the only way to resolve this sort of thing has been taking the pages in question to AfD, as the only people who watch talk pages of article like this are inevitably people who feel that it is desperately important to have individual articles on them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any precedent for fully protecting redirects for merged characters? I've dealt with this problem too, I've had to hammer down on stuff like Scorpia Rising (novel) (after the original title, no disambig, was merged into Alex Rider) and Peter Creedy and Eric Finch from V for Vendetta. Really, really annoying and aggravating to have to constantly visit the pages just because such edits undoing the merges can easily slip under the radar if you just put them on your watchlist. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there's precedent. I'd expect that to be the outcome if the pages are merged: unprotection can be trivially requested if significant reliable sources do show up (and note that, contrary to the assertions above, not one of these three articles yet has any non-trivial secondary sourcing at all; the two at Tracey Kibre are trivial in the extreme, consisting of one sentence in a TV guide review and a trivial mention in a one-paragraph plot summary respectively). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soulforge

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

no real notability shown for this band. lacks coverage in independent sources. Local Talk Magazine is a little bit of local interest coverage. release not on important label. competetition not major. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this article i am the band manager, and it was approved by Wikpedia i formatted it to a better layout, i added links to most entries such as local talk to show readers the articles mentioned, so they can then read them. When you discussed " no real notabilty" maybe you need to re-read the article, this band has members from international known acts. this is a proper recording band. the Album artwork was done by Felipe Machado Franco, an elite renown artist for major label bands, this is our artwork the band PAID for, so this belongs to us, and as such has been placed here. I urge you to re-think the idea of deletion, as its unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matolocalypse (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read about Conflicts of interest, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Then read up about notability for bands. This afd is not about wether they are a real band or not, it's about are they notable?. This article has not been approved by Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Struggling to find a decent source.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Ringer

AfDs for this article:

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

Actor has only appeared in two films. Article is written very biased and poorly. JDDJS (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a case of fixing the article to remove the bias. The actor only had two projects, but they are both big-budget starring roles projects, even if The Last Airbender didn't do much at all. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how big his role is going to be in Cowboys and Aliens? I don't recall seeing him in any of the commercials. JDDJS (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If his name's on the film poster, it's about as big as you can get. Nate • (chatter) 07:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nate. What is this delete actors we hate day? Seriously guys check TV Guide on this guy to see if he still is out there.[29] He has done interviews and had others talk about him in interviews. If there is a question about who wrote this wiki (I doubt it was pure advertisement), I suggest you rewrite it not delete it because the article itself has credit.Silent Bob (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think being the lead in an international film that hit #1 in several counties, including Russia, is enough reason to keep his article. Wikipedia shouldn't be solely USA-centric. That said, his second film is being released in 8 days, whether his performance is judged well or judged poorly will impact his career. Denaar (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn I didn't realize that there was a previous AFD which resulted in a keep when I nominated this for deletion. With his new film due for release soon, we can wait and see how his career turns out. I might renominate this for deletion in the future but I think for now it can be kept. JDDJS (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 06:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger

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

as per WP:CRYSTAL, this event hasn't even occurred. fails WP:GNG for lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event has been confirmed by multiple sources, and has been officially announced by the UFC and Bud Light.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing doesn't make something notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being sperglords. It's a major UFC event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.108.140 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all the sources are kickboxing related. how about something independent? LibStar (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are from sites that cover MMA news, not kickboxing news (at least from what I saw). The independent clause of WP:GNG says, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". The subject in this case is "UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger" and it's creator is the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Coverage outside of UFC, its press releases and its promotional material is independent by my interpretation of WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, noted. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination seems based on a misunderstanding of policy. There is sufficient coverage to pass WP:N. An event that is scheduled to happen, almost certainly will happen, and has received coverage in sources (so that the article can actually say something) does not fail WP:Crystal. Croctotheface (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see coverage in mainstream media. it's all fighting sources mainly reporting that the event will happen rather than anything indepth. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also believe the nomination seems based on a misunderstanding of policy. I have tried to discuss this misunderstanding with the nominator, but could not get a constructive discussion going to illustrate that martial arts references can be "independent of the subject" since the subject is an event, not an entire sport. Multiple references are available to support the notability of this event. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. While the sources aren't much, they meet the meager standard for GNG, are sufficiently independent of the fight organization, and accurately assess what is going on at the event. Normally I'd agree with User:LibStar about the crystal ball, but the sources specifically establish the venue, the sponsor, and the draw match, so notability is satisfied and the event is very likely to occur, so WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply in this case. Whether the event is sufficiently notable is the topic of this discussion. It appears consensus is yes. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Food Island

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ryan Vesey contribs 05:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Food Island creator has also created Food island. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, will that be deleted when this one is? Ryan Vesey contribs 05:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've PRODed the other article, as it clearly violates both WP:GNG and WP:FUTURE. I have little doubt that there'll be objection to deletion; however, we need to make sure that Food island, Food Island, and Possible new Disney Channel show all get deleted, as the author redirected Food Island to Possible new Disney Channel show (not sure if that affects this AFD at all). Inks.LWC (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Inks. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -48 kg

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -48 kg

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

also nominating:

Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -52 kg
Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -56 kg
Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -60 kg
Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -65 kg
Women's Thai-Boxing at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -70 kg

another sprawling series of just results articles. almost all the participants in these pages are non notable. women's kickboxing receives far less coverage than men's kickboxing so completely fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Very few competitors and no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While i find all the sports related articles (well almost) boring and uninformative, i can easily see how it is a notable event for those who are around this field. Beta M (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons for keeping. where are the sources to meet WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles don't show any notability or independent sources. It's hard to claim events with 2-4 competitors are notable. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in to your account (which I am sure you have) to comment on AfDs. Kevin (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are unsourced articles about competitions with only a few competitors. They appear to just be sports results with no supported claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No satisfaction of WP:EVENT. Wikipedia is not a sportspage, though worthy subjects like sports, sports personalities and sporting events may be notable enough for inclusion. This is a set of fight cards. No independent coverage. No RS. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Jaff

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

This article (created by Hjaf (talk · contribs)) contains a long list of printed references, however, it is impossible to verify its content with the help of independent online resources, and I don't believe that the listed sources back up the content of our article. Why? I was a bit surprised when I found four articles with identical list of references, including all details, such as paging. The other articles have been created by Shajaf (talk · contribs):

Mahmoud Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mohammed Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Dawood Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Zaher Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jaff Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

There's no evidence (aside from the copypasted list in our articles and two unreliable external links) confirming that the people are notable for Wikipedia. I suspect conflict of interest and possibly a sockpuppetry (note the similarity between the articles and usernames of the creators: Shajaf (talk · contribs), Hjaf (talk · contribs)). I'm including all the articles in this AfD nomination, as I think there's a significant similarity between the articles. However, I'll create separate discussions if objected. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - We can add another article, (Jaff), to the list. It too was written by Shajaf (talk · contribs) and contains the identical list of references, as seen in this edit. Also, the edit is dated 10th June, therefore the list had to have been copypasted to Sardar Jaff, as seen in this edit, which is dated 18th June, eight days later. The same refrence list was copypasted to the Mahmoud Jaff article, also on the 10th June, as seen in this edit, and again to Zaher Jaff. as seen here. With the best good faith Shajaf can be said to have intentionally copypasted a bunch of references, however detailed and scholarly, to several articles to which they do not relate, ergo none of the six articles is credible, but most particularly Sardar Jaff, which got the ref list eight days later than the rest. As for sockpuppetry, it might be simply that Shajaf/Hjaf are quite innocently one new editor unsure as to what name to edit under and so no deception is intended. This is suggested by the fact that all five of Shajafs articles were substantially written on the 7th june, then Hjaf's single article is written on the 18th, a possible interim change of name. As for the conflict of interest, it would seem Shajaf/Hjaf is /are member/s of the Jaff tribe. It would seem to me acceptable that a tribe member write about the tribe as long as NPOV is maintained. Mark^Dask 09:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Although just the fact that the references are printed rather than online is definitely insufficient grounds, this is most likely a sockpoppetry and some sort of vanity writing. Beta M (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is not that the references are printed - they are probably all sound references - but references to what, and to which article particularly? As things stand one might as well write an article about pink wool and cut and paste the same references. It is that they are being applied to all the articles irrespective of content that renders both references, and subsequently the articles, unsupportable. Mark^Dask 11:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a leader of a Kurdish tribe. I'd suggest that Jaff tribe would be a merger candidate for all of these, assuming the existence of the tribe is verifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it looks that the list of sources is copy-pasted directly from the article Jaff tribe. It is someone's attempt to push their family history to Wikipedia. I would agree with redirecting the article Jaff, but I disagree with keeping/merging the other articles, unless a really good and reliable source comes up. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the record of Jaff tribe edits, going back to 16th April, as here, that Vejvančický is right - the references were cutandpasted from that date. - This means the entire Jaff series is suspect. Shajaf's talkpage demonstrates that his articles were suspect very early - but nothing came of the prods. I think Hjaf/Shajaf/ has had other names, but the raw fact is the copypasted refs for the entire Shagaf/Hjaf series of articles - as listed - are duplicitiously imported, possibly to cover a significant copyvio, as suggested here and here. Mark^Dask 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be fairly clear consensus that this article is inappropriate, primarily because of the vagueness of its title, which doesn't (from what the commentators here have indicated) line up with any system of categorisation used anywhere else in the world. As such, there are some serious notability concerns (and yes, lists also have to pass notability). If someone wishes to recreate the article, with clear indications on how this topic is notable and/or in line with actual systems of literary classification, they are welcome to. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

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

The page contains only original research and facts can't be verified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negativecharge (talk • contribs)

Huh? It only contains a list of book titles. What original research or facts are you referring to? Will Beback talk 05:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the fact of inclusion would constitute original research; each entry should have a reliable source saying "Boox XYZ portrays sexual relations between minors and adults", and if not should be removed. If an editor reads a book and says to himself "Hmmm, this book portrays sexual relations between minors and adults, I think I'll add it to the list" this would be allowable iff it is prima facie uncontestably and incontravertibly true. However, the concepts "portray", "sexual relations", and "minor" can be slippery especially when one is dealing with a work of fiction, so few books would meet this criterion, probably, except for works of explicit pornography. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The list has sources, so I don't think there is any original research going on here. If you want to verify the information, go read the book. On the other hand, I'm not sure why a list of books which portray pedophilia is notable. Seems kind of random to me (like List of books portraying empty coffee cups), but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. —SW— ^soliloquize 16:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above "If you want to verify the information, go read the book" is not the Wikipedia way. "If you want to verify the information, go find another person who has read the book" and published his comment in a reliable source is the Wikipedia way. 02:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  - I think you are taking 'no original research' too far. If i have a photo of the celebrity, i say "this is the photo of this celebrity, if you don't believe me, look at the photo". I do not go and find somebody publishing an academic paper on the fact that this celebrity is shown in this specific photograph. Beta M (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it's a list of random titles, which could be way out of date and not accurate, and not really a topic of any importance. There could be millions of "X that portrays Y in Z country" which are plain junk. Negativecharge (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conflates too many separate topics: books where the person would be considered underage now but an adult in the period when the book was written (I presume this is the reason for including Dido, Queen of Carthage, which I haven't read), books about child molestation and pedophilia, books that probably wouldn't be listed if the relationship was consensual rather than rape (Speak (novel), in which a high school senior rapes a freshman), books where the topic doesn't appear to be a significant element in the plot, pederastic literature, and still others. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most entries are notable in their own right but don't necessarily serve as classical examples of the topic. If anything, something more along the lines of "Sexual abuse of minors in literature" might make for a more helpful - if difficult to write - article. Several Times (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And as it turns out, the extensive AfD discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction seems to cover the remaining qualms. Several Times (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting situation. This is the fourth time this list has been to AfD. What have we learned so far? That this list is controversial. That some people see a value in it, and others don't, but there's no clear consensus. That the list itself has been problematic and continues to be despite four AfDs. There has long been a concern about the Original Research aspect of the list, and that concern is valid. What books should be on the list, and how are they to be identified? Using the books themselves as evidence is unsatisfactory and is against policy. Sometimes there are no bright lines. Should Romeo and Juliet be included as most scholars agree that Juliet is 13 and that Romeo is between 16 and 18. No. Because 16 is today not regarded as "adult" while at the time of the play 13 was not considered a "minor". The parameters of the list are poorly defined and open to interpretation and disagreement. There have been some plausible arguments put forward that the list is a useful research tool, but as has been pointed out in the various discussions, the books are fairly random, and the scope too wide and poorly defined to be of much use to anyone looking into whatever it is that people might be researching. The list is apparently intended to include all sorts of books and all manner of relationships, so it is not clear what the subject might be, though "paedophilia in literature" seems favourite. I suspect that a list of major and significant literary works dealing with paedophilia would be useful, and the best place to start such a list would be Pedophilia#In literature, television and film, and it might be better if the section dealt with the literary works in extended prose rather than simply listing them. A list is unhelpful and tells the reader little. It might also be useful to have a separate list of papers on research into the topic - a further reading section appended to the end of Pedophilia - though ideally the information in those papers would be summarised and contained within the Pedophilia article. The subject of "paedophilia in literature" is viable - there is a notable paper by Elizabeth Freeman which appeared in American Literature: "Honeymoon with a Stranger: Pedophiliac Picaresques from Poe to Nabokov" so a simple delete is probably not the most appropriate solution to this issue. I suggest a clean up. Remove all the unsourced books. Clearly define the parameters, and use reliable sources on the topic to build a prose article on "paedophilia in literature". In fact, rename the article Paedophilia in literature, and perhaps merge contents and redirect to Pedophilia#In literature, television and film. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per SilkTork's excellent exposition above. He made it as a comment rather than as a specific suggestion to Keep, but it's pretty clear that's his intent. The subject is pretty clearly notable, and the subject is unquestionably controversial, which pretty much assures us of 20 straight No Consensus challenges if we all stick around long enough. Fix what needs to be fixed (specifying the inclusion criteria and requiring sourcing) and move along... Carrite (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep yes it conflates several KINDS of sexual relationship between children and adults into one list. But attempting to draw distinctions would be original research. This is a notable topic, if controversial. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete i agree with Roscelese, plus pages about pedophiles are awful.~~ Big Skeleton (Big Skeleton —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

~~delete - Listed many times in order to be deleted, it's clear that most people consider this list to be of little use.~~ Juan Aubrie (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete because i agree with Several Times above.~~ Gomi Reseau (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there's not much to be fixed or salvaged. The community has considered, sometime in the past, other similar pages ("list of X portraying relations with adults and children") to be unfit to be included in an encyclopedia. Johnny the Rebel (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the topic has received "significant-enough attention by the world at large", as is shown by the Library of Congress categories in the references. Unscintillating (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the page is irrelevant for any respectable encyclopedia that deserves to be called as such. Man of the Middle Eastern Conflict (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The following three participants in this AFD have been Confirmed as sock puppets of each other and of an indefinitely blocked user (and hence have been blocked accordingly):

Juan Aubrie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Big Skeleton (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Johnny the Rebel (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 07:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...also

Confirmed and blocked is Gomi Reseau (talk · contribs), who exhibits the same MO and everything. –MuZemike 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have taken the liberty of striking the comments of blocked socks above. Carrite (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. -c c 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the list is highly problematic in that it arbitrarily conflates a variety of types of relationships and historical cultural standards, resulting in a list that is at best a conglomeration of unrelated stuff (tantamount to List of books containing characters with red hair), and at worst quite misleading in suggesting that all of the depicted relationships are immoral or illegitimate. There's room for an article (or list) on sexual exploitation of minors in fiction, but this is not that article. If this were TV Tropes, I'd call it People Sit On Chairs. Dcoetzee 04:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted this for a third week, because we need to get a little deeper discussion, without the disruptive sockpuppetry. This AFD is now semi-protected. Courcelles 04:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; SilkTork's excellent comment was given as a reason to support above, but I'm going to take the opposite tack; it shows that what constitutes adulthood varies too much over culture and history, and given the hypercharged atmosphere as relates to such relationships in our society, it opens up too many cans of worms for an article that is close to being an indiscriminate list anyway. Kansan (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't think that "hypercharged atmosphere" should be taken into the account when making the decisions on whether to delete an article or not. That would cause articles on most political, religious, environmental, etc. topics to be deleted. Beta M (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should never be the overriding or even a major factor - you are right in that. I only mention it here as any claim to notability would be extremely weak as to make a "keep" stance tenuous, and it simply constitutes a factor as to why I do not feel the status quo should receive the benefit of the doubt. Kansan (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Basically per Dcoetzee. Unlike Carrite, I'd also say SilkTork's comment if anything leans toward merge if not delete. There's a lot of issues with this article that can't be resolved without basically starting again with a better defined focus. sonia♫ 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well referenced list which deserves its place on Wikipedia. While it may appear that a category can serve a better purpose, it may distract the reader of the article if this is the only category (thus giving it undue weight) and also would be impossible to do with the books for which there are no articles. Beta M (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project space pending a split. While it is clear that there are some notable topics in this area, and Silk Tork's comments outline how one or more clearly defined lists would be encyclopaedic this list is just too vague to be useful in the main space. Once it has been agreed what the scope of the new list(s) will be, then entries here can be moved if they meet the inclusion criteria. It can then be deleted, Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability problems. The earth is not flat. Maybe there are a lot of so-called relationships of this type, but only a microscopic segment of society openly celebrate it. -BE TA 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bentheadvocate. Difluoroethene (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AS I've repeatedly argued on the article talk page, inclusion on this list can be based on nothing but WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability problems and vagueness. Minor under whose law and what definition? Does it extend back into ancient times before it was distinguished the way it is now? Why? Seems open to original research and endless bickering. Wikipedia is made to cover settled areas of knowledge, not to create articles where we figure it out by ourselves. Dzlife (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is made to cover settled areas of knowledge" half the articles would disappear if we apply this rule. And of course what is 'settled'? I agree that as the article stands now there are issues. The main one is that the title is a bit confusing, but that is because people keep insisting on moving it from more reasonable to the less so titles. Beta M (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the basis of my !vote, looking at the references on the article shows:

Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child molesters-Fiction
National Library of Canada Cataloging in Publications Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse-Juvenile fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Sexual abuse victims-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Adult child sexual abuse victims-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child Abuse-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Pedophilia-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child Molesters-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Child sexual abuse by teachers-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Sexually abused children-Fiction
Library of Congress Subject Heading: Incest-Fiction

None of these subject headings cover the title of this article. I conclude that the world at large does not consider this topic notable. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that Library of Congress does not classify books by the title of the article doesn't make it non-notable. I am sure there is no "Subject Heading: Goose Harbour Lake", however, there may be something in the library of congress which deals with that lake. In fact the fact that there are so many books in the LoC probably shows the exact opposite of your irrational conclusion. Beta M (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my limited knowledge of logic...I agree that the process of induction is not a form of proof, and that I have not proven that the topic is non-notable. However, I have induced that the topic is non-notable. Claiming that this conclusion is "irrational", without evidence, seems to be a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all you've done is shown that the Library of Congress (one of many classification schemes) doesn't use this title to group works of fiction. It doesn't show, prove or induce anything about the topic at all. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also showing that the topic is not referenced by the sources in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are showing the title isn't. The inclusion criteria are apparently "any of {1, 2, 3}" where 1, 2 and 3 are the subject headings you note above. When we have a grouping of notable topics we have to determine whether the grouping is appropriate or not, but even if it isn't it doesn't mean that the topic is not notable. In this case, I don't think the grouping is appropriate because it's too loose, however this is because it's too difficult to determine what is and isn't included. It is not shown by your list. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical depressions

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

This article is incomplete and is an orphan. It gives a list of non-notable storms, TD's occur all the time. Wikipedia is not a directory last time I checked. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I copied and pasted the article to my userspace.--12george1 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is against Wikipedia rules; see WP:Cut-and-paste moves. I have deleted the page; if this AFD closes as "Delete", let me know, and I will move the article to your user space. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can move it to my userspace. Move it to the page that you deleted.--12george1 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article may be useful to some. There is no reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The list is impossible to finish. There are thousands of tropical depressions across the world, and keeping them all in one article is hardly encyclopediac. Last time I checked, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a "list or repository of loosely associated topics", nor "an indiscriminate collection of information". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, cohesive topic that isn't indiscriminate. If it limits itself to storms for which V is met, it will be incomplete, which is fine: we don't/can't cover things for which we don't have documentation, so holding that against the list article doesn't make sense. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic would certainly be indiscriminate if it was even halfway complete. The article is a completely unfinished list spanning a short time period. Technically it should refer to every single tropical cyclone that had its impetus as a tropical depression. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's impossible to maintain anything like a good list of something so numerous. Better handled as a category. -- 202.124.72.254 (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' would be impossible to maintain and complete, in the first place. Wikipedia is not a directory, as said by Yellow Evan. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 15:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': There's no real use for this article or purpose to this article. Again, per above, it fails WP:DIRECTORY. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate; akin to List of thunderstorms. Juliancolton (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Any editor is free to write a new sourced article and I will be glad to userfy or incubate this article upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuhiro Matsunaga

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

Another article I've had on my watchlist that has GNG problems plus only one (circumstantial) reference. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, WP:NSPORTS or WP:ENTERTAINER. Raymie (t • c) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. Notable Japanese independent wrestler. Kris (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of his notability? Our notability guidelines call for multiple sources presenting non-trival coverage of the subject and since there is so far only one reference according to standards the subject is not yet proven to be notability. Obviously there is a difference between subject not being notable and simple being not well sourced so finding extra references would be the best way to demostrate this person does in fact meet the notability guidelines. --76.66.188.209 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One EP

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the artist is well known, and particularly notable within their musical scene, and as such official releases are noteworthy - 7PusaAJ (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines. Roodog2k (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete release exists, but no evidence a criterion of WP:NALBUMS is met. Hekerui (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely lacking in secondary sources. No criterion of WP:NALBUMS is met; works by notable artists are not inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 01:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like Kicking Jesus

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines.Roodog2k (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Was reviewed by reliable source, released by notable band. Hekerui (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of Allmusic review. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The World at War#Episodes. -- Lear's Fool 12:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distant War

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

Delete Its a duplicate of a previous article , and you can find all the information at World at War Goldblooded (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The World at War. No evidence that this particular episode of that series has notability independent from the series. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The World at War. Failing redirect, merge. No sources. Apparent original research and badly formed right now. Series won an award and was nominated for two other majors, so series is notable appropriate target. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Rage 19

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

only gets coverage in MMA [30]. lacks third party coverage and thus fails WP:GNG. having notable fighters does not mean automatic notability. also nominating:

Cage Rage 18
Cage Rage 17
Cage Rage 16
Cage Rage 15 LibStar (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage of events promoted by a second tier MMA organization. Astudent0 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Only hits on these events are result listings (same as the articles themselves), promotional pages on DVDs of the event and forum postings. Little to no coverage of the actual event. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNSOURCED. Sherdog is a fine source, but all these linked articles are merely WP:ROUTINE sports coverage, and don't demonstrate any satisfaction of WP:EVENT. Possibly merge to Cage Rage Championships. Even though many may be WP:VERIFIABLE, not every sports event is notable. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Maldives relations

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

fails WP:GNG. the relationship is merely recognition. no significant trade, no agreements, no state visits. no significant coverage of a real bilateral relationshop [31]. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a cursory search of the relations reveals that the Maldives foreign minister visited Israel in May and signed multiple trade agreements and Israel was the 3rd state to recognize the Maldives independence 36 years ago. I see many reasons why these relations are notable and the article simply needs to be expanded.--TM 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TM. Marokwitz (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 06:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors published by Persephone Books

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

Non-encyclopedic; a mere catalog/list of authors who have nothing in common besides having been published or reprinted by one publisher, violative of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. There is nothing of value here for us; a mere listing, if it were necessary at all, would find a more natural place at the article on this particular publisher. Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article on the company itself is very marginal. Better to have a link there to their website where the authors can be listed, and kept up to date without WP editors bothering with it. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete Although currently a delete may be in order, but if there is any reason why the list maintained by the company may be less useful than one published on Wikipedia, than please consider this a vote to Keep. Beta M (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely hate, and dont understand, publisher articles which list the authors published, or record label articles which list musicians. unless we have a source showing the author has an EXCLUSIVE publishing relationship, or has been written about as a, or the, major publisher for an author, listing authors is pure puffery. list the TITLES published, not the authors. this is especially true for a publisher like persephone, which apparently does reprints of earlier works. I can publish shakespeare. does that make me notable? no.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:ADVERT This is nothing more than puffery for the publisher. I wonder how it survived being speedied. Roger (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bloomsbury has a page exactly the same as this List of authors published by Bloomsbury Publishing which has thus far escaped deletion. The idea behind the list was so that people wishing to create articles for those authors not currently listed would not only have a jumping off point from which to do so, but also be able to find the Wikipedia articles for these authors listed in one place. In any case, very few of Persephone's books are out of copyright since an author has to have died before 1941 in order for it to be out of copyright, so it is hardly the same as republishing Shakespeare. I would have no problem with creating a list with the titles instead, though it seemed simpler and clearer to list the authors alone since many of them have acceptable Wikipedia pages where the titles themselves do not.LambsC (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - you've combined two non-valid arguments here: WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I find neither persuasive, unsurprisingly. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No prizes for guessing which article beginning with "List of authors published by..." is going to face "trial by AFD" next. Roger (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those 'intersection' type lists where the separate topics (in this case the publisher and the authors) may have received coverage, but not in context of each other. If reliable sources do not consider this a notable intersection then neither should we. Polequant (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature in Performance.

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Recommending either outright deletion, or merging content with American Shakespeare Center. Considering the lack of references, outright deletion is probably the wiser of the two at this point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge I found some usable sources[32][33], but given the existence American Shakespeare Center article and the fact that most articles on the program also reference the center, I think it makes more sense to merge. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this material ito the American Shakespeare Center makes sense, but the current page should either redirect to Shakespeare in performance, or be a disambiguation between the Center and the performance page. I had expected to find a dissertation here on how Shakespeare is performed, given the title. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm unable to find evidence of notability that satisfies WP:ORG#Primary_criteria. All sources regarding this program seem to be highly local media and references to be based on press releases. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should probably have been speedy deleted under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It is an article about a single course offered by a single college. No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (as required by WP:N). No attempt is made to establish a real-world context or perspective outside the realm of promotional material, and neither is there likely to be any. I have no objections to mentioning this in another article if its deemed appropriate, but that should not affect or even slow down the deletion of this article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Blue

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

No evidence of notability, just passing mentions and primary sources, fails WP:COMPANY Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks notable to me. It belongs to the mighty Barclays, who's about to sell it for over a billion dollars. The Financial Times has mentioned it in Jan., Feb., and June of this year. Being quoted in FT as a financial expert means something. This from AFP makes Global Blue sound very notable:

Duty-free specialist says Chinese tourist spending soars

(AFP) – 1 day ago

PARIS — Chinese travellers nearly doubled their spending on tax-free goods in 2010 to 1.3 billion euros ($1.84 billion), tax-free transaction specialist Global Blue said Tuesday.

The firm, owned by Barclays Private Equity and a leader in processing duty-free purchases, said in a statement that in the 12 months to March it handled 16.3 million traveller transactions, up 29 percent, and 5.7 million currency transactions, up 4.2 percent.

Seems to me that at the very least Global Blue should be tucked into our Barclays article. Yopienso (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding "tax free" to the search terms helps disambiguate, since "global" and "blue" are such common words online. This article from the New York Times, plus this article from the Daily Star in Lebanon, help establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep, just added sale info under recent events. This article just needs more sources, and believe me they're out there. -BE TA 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a superabundance of sources: 16 cites and 23 external links. Yopienso (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, half of them are primary sources from Global Blue itself. Most of the rest simply mention Global Blue in passing, regarding their expertise in finance and tax-free shopping markets. It needs more Tertiary sources reporting on Global Blue specifically. --BE TA 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nomination. Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured by major travel guide. An article by another travel guide printed both by ABC News and USA Today. Another travel guide. Another. Another. Along with the quote in AFP and the mentions in FT, plus the value of the company, I'm convinced Global Blue is notable. It seems to be a niche business--a large, important, world-wide, notable one--that maybe a only small percentage but still large number of world travelers is aware of. It seems and financial and travel advisors are fully aware of it. Yopienso (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand what substantial coverage means - one line mentions in travel guides do not count. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do not understand; any tutoring on my talk page would be welcome. My interpretation of Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material means that when FT quotes Global Blue as an authority, it gives it notability. My interpretation of The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources means mention in every international guide I've consulted "adds up" to sigcov. In other words, just one wouldn't hack it, but half a dozen do. Also, the article here is entirely about Global Blue.

Meanwhile, may I suggest to the editor who created the Global Blue article that s/he insert it into the one on Barclays, where its inclusion would not be debated. Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsonRules (talk • contribs) 03:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Newberry

The individual is not notable and the entire article does nothing but promote the individual's business interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 2011/07/08 21:14:00

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I thought this might meet criteria 3 or 4c of WP:AUTHOR, since his books are his main claim to notability, but I've been unable to find any professional reviews. Yunshui (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Weak Delete Assertion - I don't know what "weak delete" means. Hoewver, I'm open to being wrong but I'm wondering how my delete request can be "weak" (if that's what the person above meant) when Wikipedia's notability requirements necessitate the following, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (WP GNG) Since no one has found any such references it would appear that the subject cannot be declared "notable" at this time.

Plus, even if Tommy Newberry does meet the notability guidelines, the article about him doesn't meet the "biography" guidelines. It doesn't have any info about the gentleman's birthday, educational background, or professional experience. All it contains is a 2-sentence endorsement that looks like it came off the back of one of his books. Presumably someone could have added more relevant info if his/her agenda was something other than marketing Tommy Newberry's material.

These article should be deleted because it's clearly an advertisement rather an effort to create a real article AND no one has demonstrated that the subject is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlchan29 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find any major reviews of Newberry's book, and limited news coverage apart from one or two articles like this, where he is listed as one of a few Tea Party speakers. -- Lear's Fool 07:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 10:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duccio Kaumualii Marignoli

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing in the article to indicate notability. asnac (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable sources, none which were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Kourdakis and Apostolopoulos, delete Moisiadis. There is no disagreement about deleting Moisiadis. There does seem to be consensus that playing in the Football League 2 would satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, and Jogurney's demonstrate that. Rlendog (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Kourdakis

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the criteria stated above. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all three clearly fail WP:GNG. Kourdakis and Moisiadis both clearly fail WP:NSPORT as they have never played in a fully pro league. If the content of the Alexis Apostolopoulos is accurate, then he has played in a fully pro league (Gamma Ethniki) and would meet WP:NSPORT. However, I cannot verify that this is the case. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexis Apostolopoulos. I think that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he has made a number of international appearances in the Greek National Team for the Under-21 and Under-19 squads. Those are not junior squads. In any case, he easily meets the general notability standards in WP:NSPORT. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states that what a player achieves at youth level doesn't make them notable. If he has played in Gamma Ethniki then provide some reliable references to back it up. If it can't be verified then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lazaros Moisiadis: Lazaros clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as he never played for a senior club. However, both Panagiotis Kourdakis and Alexis Apostolopoulos have signed for Football League 2 clubs, something easily verifiable, which covers WP:NSPORT. Unfortunately, there is a lack of reliable statistics around Football League 2, so it will be kind of hard to verify whether they actually played or not, and i'm not sure at all about the appearances and goals mentioned in their articles. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easy to verify that Kourdakis (ΚΟΥΡΔΑΚΗΣ, ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ) played in Football League 2 (http://www.epae.org/match.fds?categ=3&dior_code=117&cal_day=34&game=1&group=2&type=1&pagecode=01.03&langid=1). Jogurney (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And equally easy to verify that Apostolopoulos (ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ, ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ) played in Football League 2 (http://www.epae.org/match.fds?categ=3&dior_code=117&cal_day=1&game=7&group=2&type=1&pagecode=01.03&langid=1). Jogurney (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for Kourdakis and Apostolopoulos since the articles satisfy NSPORTS. Delete Moisiadis since the article fails GNG and NSPORTS. I'm not sure the first two articles will pass GNG, but given the amount of Greek-language coverage of even the third level of Greek football, I suspect they can be brought up to that level. Jogurney (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may have been a bad idea to roll these AFDs together, as the comments above suggest. A no consensus close with an invitation to AFD the articles separately may be necessary. causa sui (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bortz

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

being a member of Cincinnati City Council since 2005 does not seem to confer notability? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--actually, it does. See WP:POLITICIAN #2, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Bortz easily passes this test--do a google news search on "Chris Bortz Cincinnati" and there are plenty of reliable sources. I'll try to add some references now, but even without them, this calls for a cleanup tag, not a deletion. Meelar (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I've significantly updated the article and added several citations to reliable sources. Meelar (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sources are showing in the piece. The subject's minor party ties make him rather more noteworthy than your run of the mill city councilor, but that's icing on a big-enough cake. Carrite (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to make a valid argument for deletion under WP:POLITICIAN, one would have to assert that Cincinatti is not a "major metropolitan city". It seems to me that this is a tough argument to make. I suggest that the nominator, who I am sure was acting in good faith, read the relevant and applicable notability guidelines before making further AfD nominations. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read WP:POLITICIAN I didn't think he qualified as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." but I'm happy for it to remain if he qualifies under "major metropolitan city" Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HOTTIE. Voyager640 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaz Woods

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore doesn't comply with notability requirements, or possibly even a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A modern day Hendrix. An inspiration to young aspiring guitarists, and a true professional. WP:BARFBAG. If this unsourced extravaganza is factual, and it's unsourced, so who knows, this is a session musician with a fairly long resumé. That still falls short of our notability standards... Carrite (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One would assume that a musician who is called "a modern day Hendix" in a Wikipedia article would be discussed in depth in many reliable sources. In this particular case, one would be wrong to make such an assumption. This particular Hendrix wannabe is a "modern day non-notable". Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, written more like a promotional piece. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article is clearly used as a mean just for promotion only. I've also nominated a picture for deletion on Commons. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eliana Benador. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benador Associates

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

This now-defunct organization does not appear in itself to have either staying power or lasting notability. Any information covered here that actually is notable could easily be folded into Eliana Benador. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eliana Benador whose article I advocated keeping when it was up for AfD in March, 2011. Benador Associates was indistinguishable from Eliana Benadaor when it existed, so there is no need for a separate article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article looks like it can be expanded, the list of speakers is quite large, and i believe that sufficient research would provide enough results to make it into a good article. Beta M (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Per nom.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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