Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rejuvenator

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

Non-notable product. A Google Books search for "The Rejuvenator" barometric therapy brings up nothing, as does a Google News search. A Google News archives search actually brings up two hits ([1] and [2]), but upon closer inspection, they're just advertisements masquerading as news articles. It is also to be noted that the author of the article (Hollisrisley) has an apparent conflict of interest as the inventor of the device according to the article (Hollis Risley). Overall, the device is unworthy of an encyclopedia article due to the lack of independent coverage. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable G11. Not notable. QU ^TalkQu 22:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no indication of wp:notability. Reads like an advertisement. As a sidebar, from a technical standpoint, this thing is snake-oil. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that subject of this article does not meet the standard of WP:AUTHOR or have sufficient coverage to be notable under the WP:GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McGrath (author)

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

Bio, almost certainly autobio, with no attempt made to demonstrate notability. Also a redirect at Sean McGrath, CTO and Author. — Sgroupace (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Has written 3 published books. North8000 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid keep reason by WP:AUTHOR. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of his books that he wrote or his accomplishments make him notable. Per WP:AUTHOR. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable author. No notable books. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gas) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He may have some notability. His books are published by a major publisher (Prentice-Hall), and he himself gets some coverage at Google News. Examples: Infoworld describes him as a "notable expert" here and quotes him here. SiliconRepublic gives him a paragraph here and a couple of paragraphs here. Sys-Con quotes him here. Granted these are not "significant" coverage but they do suggest some degree of notability. The article needs a serious rewrite, to cite some of these sources, and to get rid of the jargon and acronyms to make it clearer what he does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, any coverage of him is not significant, and I'd rather delete this promotional content than keep it around in the faint hope that somebody rewrites it neutrally based on what scant sources there are. Sandstein 08:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 21:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adhora: The Obscure

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

Not yet released movie being promoted by its writer/director. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The production still added in the article shows that the film's principal photography has commenced. Hence it does not violate WP:NFF. Writer having conflict of interest with the subject is not a reason for deletion. But notability of the films needs to be established to stay here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the director's article - Not notable enough yet to have a separate one, but still it is hinted by quite a few sources (rarely reliable) that it will release. A redirect will also prevent further creation of the article before it becomes notable. (1, 2) Delete: None of the film's cast or crew seem notable. Best option is delete. Secret of success 06:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Director doesnt have any article here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the actor-turned-director Bhaskar Banerjee did have an article, a redirect would be a decent option. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Not Yet (films). We do have sources speaking about its production process,[3][4] but not enough yet for the topic to merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Also this blog gives completely different story of the film than the one written in the article. Is this original research? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the director's name and the usename of the author, my sense is that the article may be more accurate than the blog. However, we'll know for sure when the film is actually released. Article creator now notified of this discussion, AND politely cautioned about possible COI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Phaik Hwa

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

Wasn't quite sure what to do with this one. As it stands, is a negatively-worded, barely-sourced BLP that comes close to an attack page. But as speedy is only for unsourced BLPs that are attack pages, I couldn't nominate for a speedy. I think she's semi-notable in the sense that she was CEO of Singapore's national rail company, but as it stands the article needs to go as a negative BLP. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep, though I agree with all of the nom's comments. Horribly written and negative, but I think she's notable. I found a number of references on a quick google search. Creator seems interested in improving article. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that she's notable. I think we need a total start from scratch here though, this is a serious WP:BLP issue. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the bulk of the negative, and some of the sentences that didn't translate easily into English. I don't have the full picture of the SMRT but I think the article can stand. The creator might have shot themselves in the foot by trying to put up a negative article only to have it become a neutral article Wikipelli ^Talk 23:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Wonder if the old versions should be rev-deleted. As it stands I'm happy to withdraw this nomination — but urge any passing admin to see if the article's history can legitimately be revdel'd. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 21:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan M. Greenberg

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

Despite apparent good works, I am unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this real estate investor and CSP founder under WP:BASIC. Hard to tell how much coverage is in "A Fuller Life", the article describes that the book notes his expertise in film history, which feels like a passing reference to me, but even if that book were an in-depth source, we'd still need a second such source. Additional sources welcome, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of this article. Would links to correspondence between Alan M. Greenberg and his interviewees attesting to the fact they participated in the CSP qualify as a reliable secondary source? Fleurdelis4ever (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Fleurdelis4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi Fleurdelis4ever. Thanks for participating. In my view, I would certainly agree that published correspondence would go towards verifying that participation, but it's a tougher call as to whether that demonstrates notability--in general we prefer that articles have enough sources that have been through an editorial process that we have some hope of being able to write from a neutral point of view. The various links are to the relevant policies, which .. well, some of our policy jargon can be a little peculiar at times, so I thought they might help. Cheers, --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would not help IMO. The fact that he enlisted notable people in his project does not convey notability to him. Notability is not inherited per Wikipedia policy. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Cagoul (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity project. Non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to see what is supposed to be notable here. He created and teaches (or taught?) a non-credit class for foreign-born college students; that appears to be it. No coverage found at Google News. The article lacks basic details such as the name of the organization or college through which the class(es?) is (are?) offered, whether any other teachers are involved, how often or for how long the classes have been offered, etc. It's possible that additional detail would add to the case for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could someone please remove the Alan M. Greenberg article entirely so I can create a stub with the proposed recommendations? Thank you. Fleurdelis4ever —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Vita

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

Unsigned, non notable band? KzKrann (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable band. Doing a quick search didn't turn up any non-trivial hits for the band, outside of this article, and some personal sites. Probably could be Speedy Deleted under criteria A7. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under db-band - no references, no indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against a bold merge, or starting a merge discussion on the article's talk page. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 21:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi Actress

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

Totally unsourced, very few wikilinks, mostly only first names. Fails notability test, additionaly may be vanity self-references Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 13:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists do not usually require many references. But I agree it needs more wikilinks, put the wikify tag on top.--Deathlaser (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Bangladeshi actors and trim any non-notable entries. Please also note that AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Which means you never nominate content at AFD purely based on its current state, if editing or further research could cure the problems. The solution to a list of people such as this having non-notable entries is to remove those entries if their notability cannot be verified. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per above, depending on whether WP generally deprecates the use of the word "actress" and tends to keep male and female peformers in one list. Although if it stays, it rather obviously needs a name change to the plural actresses as well as a clean up. N-HH talk/edits 18:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some separate lists for actresses; see contents of Category:Lists of actors by nationality, but I wouldn't say it's standard. I wouldn't think it necessary here where the list probably isn't going to contain more than about 55 entries in total; we could always add a sortable column for gender to the list if we think its useful. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never thought about the merge idea. Do I need to now let this run its course, or can we close it as merge and I'll take care of the merge? Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 10:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to The Doombolt Chase. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geheimprojekt Doombolt

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

Reason DanielC46 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) The title "Geheimprojekt Doombolt" is merely the German titulation for the British television series The Doombolt Chase, which already exists on Wikipedia and lists the German title in its description. Originally, the author of this article erronously marked it as a German TV series.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 6. Snotbot t • c » 13:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The solution is to create a redirect, which I've done. This isn't a job for AfD. —Al E.^(talk) 14:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scott (soccer)

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

PROD contested by Bubbagump24 (talk · contribs) with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having only ever played in the non-fully-pro USPDL, and withou significant coverage, he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sputnik (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played a match in a fully professional league. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 21:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honour Based Violence Awareness network

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

fails WP:ORG. only established 2 months ago. All I could find is a mention of this in the guardian newspaper blog. LibStar (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Big words and no independent RS. It appairs the article fails the criterias for notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organisation, no RS used.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby

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

Probable WP:HOAX. Completely non-notable artist if he does exist, no coverage of him online from WP:Reliable sources, though lots of self-promo on YouTube, Myspace, etc. See also WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sex_Ant_Toys: he also calls himself Adrian Voyd and Adrian Boyd. G4 was declined as that AFD is five years old. Hayley Phelan reference is broken, but this is probably referring to [5], which doesn't mention him. His homepage adrianvisby.com consists of a single clickable image, which redirects to his Facebook. I've tagged his label Cabalaza Music for speedy deletion, and prodded The Fragile v4 as a hoax, but I can add them here if they fail speedy and prod respectively. Scopecreep (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article's creator User:Catémbe looks like another sockpuppet of WP:Suspected sock puppets/Its Pytch.. Hon, several of which have created pages for Sex Ant Toys, Adrian Voyd, etc., and others of which were WP:SPAs voting to keep Sex Ant Toys in its AFD. Scopecreep (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowers of Romance and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowers of Romance/Archive. Could be the same person. Scopecreep (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also WP:Articles for deletion/Adrian.Visby. Scopecreep (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND and likely hoax. Definitely created by a sock of a blocked user per checkuser. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Even if he existed, and even if the article wasn't created by a sock, this person still wouldn't be notable per the GNG or WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 10:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Ariff Zulkifly

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. This player has not received significant coverage, failing WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, since he has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (rap) 11:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brennan

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

There are two issues here: 1. Are the tournaments he won notable, making him reach notability standards; and, perhaðs more importantly, 2. What do we do with completely unsourced Biographies of Living People? I figured the best waty to deal with issue 2, one way or another, was to come here. 86.** IP (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources to the article. They're not great sources, but they do help document his fight record. He fought for 3 major MMA promotions (UFC, Pride, and Shooto) and easily passes the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. In response to the nom's questions: IMO his King of the Cage championships alone would not confer notability and I think undocumented BLPs can be removed either through WP:BLPPROD or through AfD since they appear to fail WP:V. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under WP:MMANOT fighters with three fights under 'top tier' promotions is listed as criteria supporting notability, Chris Brennan has eight (two Shooto, three Pride and three UFC). --Pat ^talk 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset (magazine)

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

Article created by a blocked spam-only account, advertising their own product. No notability established. Nymf _hideliho! 08:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything under Google, including searching websites of prominent advertising/media pubs (Ad Week, Brand Republic, Campaign, etc) and newspapers with strong media/business coverage (NY Times, WSJ). Can't find circulation/sales figures either - it doesn't seem to be sold on newsstands, and it's unclear whether it's a free giveaway or anyone buys it at all. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However minor of a magazine and however new to the magazine world it is, it does appear to be notable and legitimate. LogicalCreator (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- 'Jetsetmagazine.net's three-month global Alexa traffic rank is 110,973. Roughly 43% of visits to the site are bounces (one pageview only).' Not covered by Reliable Sources, all results are 'x featured in Jetset', 'watch photo shoot video', partnerships, & PR releases; fails WP:N as currently defined. Dru of Id (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable spam--Hu12 (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources covering it. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBZ Recordings

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

Unsupported claims of notability, possibly failing notability guidelines. Failed to find sources in a Google search. Suspected advertising attempt. Lakokat 08:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability made and unsourced. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article reads like an advert, nothing to back up claims of notability, almost all links on the first five pages of Google go to pages set up by the company. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it is now, the article is promotional and fails the notability guidelines.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 21:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caolan Lavery

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

PROD contested with the rationale "meets GNG", however he doesn't - coverage is not significant, instead it's WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation and the like. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL having failed to make a senior professional or international appearance. Giant Snowman 20:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be too soon for him to have an article. I can see him having an article in the not-too-distant future, seeing that he is playing for Northern Ireland under-21s, but for now he doesn't pass our notability guidelines for football. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not made any professional appearances so fails WP:NFOOTY; the coverage he has received is not sufficient enough to meet the GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see how he fails WP:GNG considering he has had articles in the Daily Mail and Mirror. Although he may fail NFOOTY that does not ovveride GNG. Still if there is a consensus for deleting then that's fair enough and I will userfy the article. Also GS WP:Routine applies to events not people. WP:1E applies to people who are only notable for one event. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered the Daily Mail and Mirror articles to be routine coverage. It all depends on what you consider to be "significant" coverage per the WP:GNG. Yes, WP:Routine is part of the notability guideline for events, but the principle is the same; for people, we have the "basic criteria" of WP:BIO. There, it says that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which seems to cover this situation nicely. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (userfy if Adam4267 wants). Links in article fail to prove notability; he's not notable per WP:FOOTY; and no evidence he's anything other than a run-of-the-mill player. The Telegraph and Argus article is detailed and not routine[6] but that's only one piece of local press. The other articles aren't good enough for notability guidelines: most are very short or not from independent media; and the Scottish Sun article only peripherally mentions him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated above, what coverage there is is insufficient to pass WP:GNG, and until he appears in a fully-pro league, this article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Articles in Daily Mail and Mirror are in my opinion only routine coverage of a transfer. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kichun

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

Non-notable - not even sure it exists Peter Rehse (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment I can't even find evidence that it exists. If someone can provide links or references that mention it at all, then we can take a further look, but right now, I see no option other than to delete. (The creator and main contributor to this page has done no other significant editing, and hasn't been around since 2010, which suggests it might be advertising or self-promotion, but apologies if it isn't.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I could find is a place called this. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's first sentence strongly suggests that reliable sources will be non-existent or difficult to find ("[the] origins of [this] martial art being widely unknown as it was passed from one wandering master to another"). There are no sources provided in the Haidong Gumdo article to support the subject being one of Haidong Gumdo's ancestors. A brief search for sources shows that "Kichun" is widely used (e.g., as a personal name). Without assistance from a contributor knowledgeable about this art, the information in the article will be very difficult to verify. Janggeom (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches in English are not productive. Searches in Korean for the terms provided in the article (this search or Google's alternate spelling/spacing suggestion) are nearly exclusively blogs and open-access content hosts. I am unable to evaluate the reliability of this site but I am also dubious as to whether the content supports the article regardless. News and book searches in Korean fare no better than in English. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that the article represents original research were not adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings

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

Relevant content should be in World Football Elo Ratings only. Article has no secondary sources and strongest teams per decade is irrelevant as the ranking only was introduced in 1970. Koppapa (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Are you requesting a merge? The World Football Elo Ratings page is too large as it is, and has several spinoffs for that reason.

Comment – The ranking was not introduced in 1970, but has been calculated retroactively since the first international match in 1880 or so. Afasmit (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Without prejudice. Nominator is absolutely correct. The information in Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings is a duplication of the information in World Football Elo Ratings. However, I could see separate articles or an additional article that lists the teams by individual year. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For page size reasons only the "top 10 since 1970" are listed on the main article's page and the "strongest teams per decade" are not there at all. Not sure what you mean with an "additional article that lists the teams by individual year"; you mean to have a separate list for all 130+ years? Afasmit (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Why not? Personally I believe it would be encyclopedic worthy. Let’s look at any other reference source with regards to Professional or highly ranked Amateur competition, be it individual or team, and they list the rankings by year. Isn’t Wikipedia trying to be “the end all and be all” of reference sources? You could have one article that contains the individual year information for all years and then just have redirects to the article by year. A lot of work, but then again, I believe it would deserve a place here on Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you do not dispute the relevance of the lists then, nor that there could be separate pages with them. Why do you say "Delete ... nominator is absolutely correct.", if she proposes that all relevant information should be in the main page and that the lists per decade are irrelevant? Afasmit (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, also looks to be WP:OR to me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:OR is not part of the nominator's rational, but check the talk page for an old discussion on that. Afasmit (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the nominator is requesting a merge for the first section with the main paper. In principle I have no problem with that (others may), though for such request there are less disruptive methods. The second bit, about strongest teams per decade being irrelevant must stem from a misunderstanding of the subject. The football Elo ratings may have been first published in 1997, but have been calculated starting from the very first match played. Elo scores do not create "a list of what would have been", as someone mislabeled the prematurely deleted list of Elo ranking leaders, but show in a widely acknowledged objective way what the relative strengths of the competitors (in this case national football teams) were during a period. Afasmit (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of potential interest to the world's billion-plus soccer fans, and the original article is rather long, so merging isn't a good idea. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is completely WP:OR. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original research. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The OR concern (again, not part of the nominator's rational) was discussed on the article's talk page in 2007. The "analysis or synthesis" here constitutes calculating an average, which is a standard and referenced practice with Elo scores and could be considered a Routine calculation. Afasmit (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Moomin#TV series and films. If there is anything mergeworthy it can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mumintrollet

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This television series fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see plenty of hits... in Swedish, presumably. Can you clarify how you ascertained that these sources (which I presume you saw too) are not RS? Is this a common term, or what? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common term because "Mumintrollet" is the name for Moomintroll in Swedish; the only hits I can find are false positives. Neelix (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Moomin#TV series and films. One Google News hit (Mumintrollet och kometjakten, Svenska Dagbladet, SvD Kultur, 8th October 2010), is about the Moomins and the Comet Chase film, a compilation of another series from 1977-82. Another hit talks about the same thing, (Film: Mumintrollet och kometjakten, Svenska Dagbladet, SvD Kultur, 3rd September 2010), and notes that Tove Jansson herself oversaw the animation. Could not find anything about the 1969 series itself. But that, of course, is only evidence of a negative, not proof, hence the 'weak'. Anarchangel (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no souces, no article in Swedish WP nor in other wikis, it does not appear notable enough to have a separate article, we even miss some key information (ie the channel in which it was broadcasted). I'd say merge to Moomin#TV series and films, but there isn't too much merge-worthy, except the fact it was directed by Vivica Bandler and it had 13 episodes. Cavarrone (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Moomin#TV series and films per Anarchangel. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional supercouples

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

This is just an WP:OR page, pure and simple. And don't be swayed by the supposed references. For one thing, magazine writers will use whatever term they think will sell their product. (Not to mention the suggestion that "super"heroes are part of "super"couples.) This appellation really needs some actual academic scholarship to reliably source the term. I won't dispute that the articles that are actually on couples who may be known as "supercouples" (listed under List of fictional supercouples#See also), may be fairly called this, and maybe a few night time soap stars from radio and/or television. But the rest, not so much. (And the lack of radio examples on the page would seem to confirm my concerns.) - jc37 03:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Keeping will just retain it as a constant OR magnet. - jc37 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a definition of Supercouple, and it seems to be a widely used term. It should be possible to edit the page without original research if references are provided, even if the references aren't to peer-reviewed journals. Being an "OR-magnet" isn't a valid reason for deletion - plenty of legitimate topics from general relativity downwards attract OR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Supercouple appears to be a decent list page in its own right, giving a nice overview of the term and those it has been applied to. The nommed list page would seem to be merely duplicative of that page. And nowhere near as clear or useful to our readers. - jc37 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the list is rife with notices that reliable sources are used bodes ill for it. Things that are truly notable rarely tend to need to say so--or try to say so. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no WP:OR. Plain and simple. You should be swayed by the supposed references, because they aren't supposed. Yep, magazine writers will throw around the term "supercouple" (the intro notes that), but that does not diminish the reality that the term is validly applied to many couples. Further, this list is about fictional supercouples, so there aren't going to be any "radio examples" (like the nominator wishes), and it mostly features soap opera supercouples. It mostly features soap opera supercouples because the term is most prevalent in reference to soap opera characters and high-profile celebrities. It originated in the soap opera medium, where there does exist actual academic scholarship (or there wouldn't even be a supercouple article), and has only started to expand in other areas. And when used to refer soap opera couples, it is usually used correctly. As for superheroes being part of supercouples, they are if the sources say they are. What the nominator fails to grasp is that we go by WP:Verifiability here at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you think a couple is or isn't a supercouple. It matters if the sources call them one. We don't delete articles that are well-sourced because we don't agree with what sources say and because an article is a constant OR magnet. If that were the case (and, yes, I'm going to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because it can be used properly), other lists such as Honorific nicknames in popular music would have been deleted; gooodness knows people kept trying to get it deleted. The Supercouple article is not a list page. It is a page defining and discussing the evolution of the term. It used to have some version of this list in the article and was split out, per WP:SPINOUT and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach. And this list has been well-maintained since 2008. The only reason it has notices that reliable sources are used, as Jclemens points out, is because IP editors and newbie editors didn't seem to grasp that reliable sources are needed before they add a couple to this list and because these notes weren't having as much of an effect as hidden notes. The point is they don't serve to say "Please don't delete me, I'm reliably-sourced." They serve to say "You want a couple added? Then add them with a reliable source." 31.193.133.160 (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and most of the soap opera couples in the see also section aren't as notable as the ones on the main list. That's why they're in the see also section (no sources found calling them supercouples or at least not sufficient sources). 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were indeed soaps on the radio, long before they appeared on, what was then, this new television thingamajig...

So while the term "supercouple" may have supposedly premiered in the 80s, the concept existed long before then, as even noted in the supercouple article. - jc37 06:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, the term supercouple wasn't coined until Luke and Laura. Read about why that is. It's in the scholarly sources, in addition to entertainment sources. Most of the couples termed supercouples are ones who came after the term was coined. The concept of supercouple did not exist before Luke and Laura. That is because no soap opera couple achieved the level of fame/popularity that Luke and Laura did, aside from British soap opera couple. "Dirty" Den and Angie Watts, whose famous divorce episode happened five years after Luke and Laura's famous wedding. Doug Williams and Julie Olson, who were a couple before Luke and Laura, came close to Luke and Laura's fame, but not to the level where the press felt the need to invent the term supercouple. Besides, deleting an article partially because it doesn't include couples you feel should be on the list is not a valid argument for deletion. Some lists, plenty on Wikipedia, will never be complete because a new addition is always being added or waiting to be added. If there are radio couples you feel should be on the list, then look for reliable sources calling them supercouples. Some of the sources on this list explain why these couples are supercouples. It's not just about throwing the term around willy-nilly. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways. Either it's about the concept, and examples from prior to L&L may be included, or it's only about the explicitly applied term, and they can't. - jc37 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm saying how it is. The Supercouple article is about both the term and concept. These things go hand in hand. The term/concept didn't exist before Luke and Laura. The term was thrown on them and the concept was created around their popularity and how storylines were used for their romance. The concept slowly expanded into other genres. A lot of things existed before a term/concept was applied to them. And once the term/concept was created, people said "Hey, it applies to these things even though there wasn't a term/concept for them back then." Widly popular couples existed before Luke and Laura, yes. But they weren't called supercouples back then. Some sources call them supercouples now because there is finally a term for what those couples are. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly not understanding me. Maybe you would understand better if I italicised and bolded the "only". But unfortunately I'm doubting it. I sincerely am thinking that you have no interest in even trying to understand what I'm saying at all. Shrugs. C'est la vie. - jc37 04:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you fine. Well, maybe not that fine because, in my opinion, your arguments are lacking sense. I believe you aren't understanding me. And aren't you supposed to be an administrator? Cut it out with the insults and grow up. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between insulting someone, and observing that they don't seem to have any interest in listening (possibly because they have a POV to push...) But I'll continue to waste my time attempting, because, hope beyond hope, you may actually listen to what I am saying rather than what you want to think I'm saying... - jc37 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were using insults and you're still being condescending. You can hide behind your administrative title and false need to guide the poor, misguided IP all you like, but you have issued insults and as much of a POV as you accuse me of having. And I fired back. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that they aren't listening. If I'm not listening, you are just as guilty of not listening. You aren't even trying to understand the fault in your arguments. Go on, look at your initial rationales for deletion and even subsequent ones. And you wonder why people (yes, people, not just me) see your arguments as only being opinionated? They are not rooted in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. So do spare yourself trying to convince me and others of how right you are. I'm not trying to convince you or others of anything. I am only arguing what I find to be of fault in the deletion rationales. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are my and jc37's arguments lacking sense? And please, read WP:CIVIL while you can because accusing someone for insults without proof can be troubling. --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained how your and jc37's arguments lack sense. You disagree. You are allowed to. But it's not against WP:CIVIL to say another person's rationale lacks sense. I didn't say "lack sense" anyway. I said "makes no sense," meaning none at all. And I didn't accuse jc37 of insults without proof. The proof is in this debate. You don't see that, or rather pretend that you don't see that, then that's on you. Not my problem. Don't ask me to point out the insults either. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both because of the WP:OR problems that will inevitably follow, and because lists like this are utterly pointless dead air. This is a precious notion that is the province of fan magazines and entertainment shows, not a serious subject for an encyclopedia. The term "supercouple" has no practical meaning, and that we have a definition is far from a compelling argument for this article. Rather, it's evidence we're already headed down a slippery slope into the realm of fan publishing. Least compelling is the argument about using sources that call couples "supercouples." We're trusting puff publications to set the standard for content in an encyclopedia? Even if they do rise to the level of WP:RS, and I doubt many do, where is the quality control? This is beneath us. --Drmargi (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I should point out again that we don't delete articles because they have the possibility of attracting WP:OR. You assert the "WP:OR problems that will inevitably follow," but this disregards that this list has existed since 2008 with those WP:OR problems being taken care of every time and that "plenty of legitimate topics from general relativity downwards attract OR," like Colapeninsula said a little higher. There isn't a couple on this list lacking a source or reliable source. And, okay, "supercouple" is a subjective term, especially when in reference to non-soap opera couples. But so what? Anti-hero is a subjective term too, and yet we have List of fictional antiheroes. We have lists on various subjective terms, like Honorific nicknames in popular music, pointed out above. Criticizing the sources for not being mostly scholarly is ridiculous. This is a popular culture topic. It's just fine and dandy to use popular culture sources to source popular culture topics. As a television editor (I checked your contributions), you know this. Or at least you should. You don't see scholarly sources being needed for most television and film articles on Wikipedia, or anywhere else. Even so, this topic does have scholarly sources. Okay, most of those pertain to soap opera couples, but that is no reason to delete this list. If anything, it's more of a reason to retitle it as "List of soap opera supercouples." I don't see a thing that is "[l]east compelling" about "using sources that call couples 'supercouples.'" That's called following Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy and WP:Reliable sources guideline. I don't understand how having a list on fictional supercouples or an article documenting the term (a term covered in scholarly and popular press) is going "down a slippery slope into the realm of fan publishing" and is "beneath us." There is no "fan publishing" here. Sources included are authoritative soap opera magazines, high profile entertainment magazines such as Entertainment Weekly, People, etc., which means it's not like we're using blogs here or simply gossip trash. Covering this material is no more beneath us than covering the many other popular culture topics included on Wikipedia. Unless you happen to object to those too. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - Everyone has a point. Even with inline citations, there is no way that they are supercouples. Nonetheless, this list must abandon table format and then must go for explains of how and why a source calls one couple a supercouple. One thing for sure: this list should not consist of only plot; see List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and List of Friends characters. --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Even with inline citations, there is no way that they are supercouples." So we should go off your opinion that none of these couples are supercouples, instead of the reliable sources calling them such and when it's obvious that some of the couples are supercouples? I see. So this AfD is all about opinion and throwing Wikipedia rationales, policies and guidelines out the window. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call these sources, including soap-related ones, that call couples "supercouples" opinionated. What if another source opposes a couple as a supercouple? Also, the article doesn't say why else the couple is a "supercouple". --George Ho (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said above that the term supercouple is subjective, but I also noted how it's not always subjective, especially when relating to soap opera couples. ~~You wouldn't argue that Luke and Laura are a supercouple, now would you?~~ I also noted how a lot of terms are subjective and that we still have articles on those terms and list characters under those terms. There are a lot of people who don't see eye to eye on whether or not a couple is star-crossed, for example, but we still list couples as star-crossed based on reliable sources. We follow reliable sources here at Wikipedia. That's what we're supposed to be doing for this AfD debate. If a reliable source ever disputed a couple as a supercouple, then that could be noted on the list. On this list's talk page, having a notes field was broached. If you look at List of fictional antiheroes, its literature section has a notes field. As for this article, the intro does say why some of these couples are supercouples and some of the sources discuss why some of these couples are supercouples. It's not all about just calling a couple a supercouple and leaving it at that. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep with caveats - see below. ~~This is not a serious encyclopaedic subject.~~ As Drmargi says, we cannot trust gossip columns and fan magazines to accurately determine if a given fictional couple is "super" or not. Their use of the word "supercouple" has more to do with style and character of prose than anything factual. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than you, who says it's not a serious encyclopedic topic? Who says that a serious encyclopedic topic can't be a topic covering a popular culture term? Other aticles, some of which are WP:GA or WP:FA, disagree with you. And I'll reaffirm that I don't need to be pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because this is exactly when it should be used. The rationales for deletion in this AfD make no sense: "Ooh, this article will attract WP:OR, so let's delete it. Ooh, we should delete it because I wouldn't call some of these couples supercouples, and therfore the term is too subjective to have a list, or maybe even an article, on." Geesh. One place this term hasn't been too subjective is soap opera. There are undisputed soap opera supercouples like Luke and Laura, and the basis of calling such couples supercouples is not about "style and character of prose than anything factual." 31.193.133.159 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~How about moving it to somewhere that allows original research, like TV Tropes? That might be better than deleting it outright.~~ — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about following the reliable sources, like Wikipedia is generally supposed to do, since there is no WP:Original research in the article? I've read WP:Original research and what you're prescribing as WP:Original research is not present in this article. That's why two editors have said it can attract OR, not that it's filled with OR. Just checking the sources for any of the couples listed shows that there is no original research in the article. A better suggestion would be retitling the article as List of soap opera supercouples, like I said before, since the term is more accurately used to describe extremely popular soap opera couples (and extremely popular celebrity couples), and removing the other genres. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is becoming quite controversial, so let me outline my objections in more detail, lest my rationale be confused with one of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It has been said in this discussion that the nomination and the delete !votes are based only on personal opinion. I won't speak for others, but in my case I was basing my argument on policy - specifically, that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The basic problem is that supercouple is a subjective term. Let's think about what it takes for a given couple to be thought of as a "supercouple". We have a definition in supercouple, and various people have put forward definitions in other sources, but all of these definitions are subjective. If we try and think of ways of defining a "supercouple" based on facts - maybe number of viewers, length of relationship, number of breakups, etc. - none of them quite work. If anyone can think of any objective criteria to define "supercouple", then I will be happy to change my mind, but that is not what I'm reading from the article and the sources.

So how do our sources determine which couples are "supercouples"? Well, we don't know. Popularity is one factor, of course, and degree of intrigue is another, but in the end whenever sources call a couple a "supercouple", they are expressing an opinion. There is a lot of talk of using reliable sources to determine which couples are "supercouples", but let us remember the reason we use reliable sources to determine article content in the first place. We use reliable sources because they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Among other reasons we use them, of course.) By using sources that check their facts, the theory goes, hopefully the material that we put into Wikipedia will also be factually accurate. This breaks down when we get to opinions, though. If we repeat an opinion from a source as a fact, then we are no longer being factually accurate in our articles - we are making a claim. This claim might be accurate, or it might not be - it is sometimes difficult, or even impossible, to tell. This is not a problem in the supercouple article, as we can simply convert any opinions into facts by attributing them to their sources. In the supercouple article, we can simply say that supercouple is a vague term, list all the different definitions in the sources, and state which sources say which couples are supercouples.

~~We cannot do this in the list of fictional supercouples, however. We are constrained by the format to declare, in Wikipedia's voice, that all the couples in the list are supercouples. In other words,~~ the whole list is declaring opinion as fact, and is therefore in violation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and by extension WP:NOT#OR. ~~I don't think that this is a problem that can be fixed by editing.~~ — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not becoming quite controversial, in my opinion. It's following the route of most other AfDs, heated arguments for keep or delete. I don't see how anything in here is OR just because some of the information is relying on personal opinion. As I said, many terms are subjective, but we still have articles on those terms and we still assign those terms to fictional characters and people on Wikipedia. If that's what you classify as WP:OR, then most of what is in articles like The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Mariah Carey, etc., when speaking of their legacy and impact, is WP:OR. Some of it is persoanl opinion, no doubt about that, but not all of it is. That's also how it is for the term supercouple. The words "is subjective" keep being used, as though that applies to every couple labeled a supercouple. You, Mr. Stradivarius, have already said that may not be the case for all couples. If it was, there would be reliable sources disputing the most well-known American soap opera supercouples as supercouples, but there aren't. The term has been well-defined in soap opera, which is why so many soap opera couples from the late 90s and 2000s/2010s aren't considered supercouples by the vast majority of the American soap opera viewers. Supercouple goes over this. One definition of supercouple that has been consistent is that it's a widly popular couple. I don't know what you mean by "various people have put forward definitions in other sources"; I haven't seen that at all aside from celebrity couples, and the sources still describe celebrity supercouples as extremely popular or very wealthy couples, or both. Is a supercouple an unpopular couple? Not usually. Not unless it's an unpopular couple that has achieved fame. So the term is not very subjective in that respect. You said "maybe number of viewers, length of relationship, number of breakups, etc." and "popularity is one factor, of course, and degree of intrigue is another," but that is the formula for a soap opera supercouple. It isn't just one thing. It's all of those things. Furthermore, it's not up to us to say what a supercouple is or isn't. It's up to the reliable sources, even if opinion, which is what I keep saying. WP:Verifiability is very clear on that. People should already expect that a term like "supercouple" can be subjective, and the intro points it out for those who spare time to read it. So the way you and others have been arguing to delete this list is, in my opinion, to say we might as well delete Supercouple too. And if that's the case (I know that it isn't, I'm just saying), then we should go ahead and delete Antihero, since it isn't defined in just one way, Star-crossed since it has more than one definition and some people disagree with what is and isn't star-crossed, and Supermodel since it's defined in more than one way and people disagree on who is and isn't a supermodel. You said factuality "breaks down when we get to opinions. ... If we repeat an opinion from a source as a fact, then we are no longer being factually accurate in our articles - we are making a claim. This claim might be accurate, or it might not be - it is sometimes difficult, or even impossible, to tell. This is not a problem in the supercouple article, as we can simply convert any opinions into facts by attributing them to their sources. ... We cannot do this in the list of fictional supercouples, however." But we can do that. WP:LIST shows ways that we can, such as having a notes field to say why each couple is considered a supercouple. This (having a notes field) was brought up on the list talk page. And if that's not good enough, and since no one has responded to my suggestion to rename the list as List of soap opera supercouples, how about renaming it as List of fictional couples considered supercouples? This is similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Although I don't understand how adding these qualifiers is any different than the current title, since it should be clear to readers already that when we say "Supercouple," "Best film," "Greatest song," "Best athlete," the terms are being used subjectively (less so for supercouple because of the reasons I've already given). 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking more about this list, and I have come up with a way that we can keep it, and solve the original research problems that I outlined above. (My apologies to the IP, and to the others who disagreed with my "not a serious encyclopaedic subject" claim. That was a hasty claim, and I should have investigated the sources more before I made it.) As I said above, to eliminate all original research from the list, we need to attribute all the claims of "supercouple" to their sources. To do this properly, we really need to convert this list to prose, so I think that a caveat to keeping the article must be that it drop the table format. Also, we need a way to make sure that this list doesn't include every single couple that has been described off-handedly as a "supercouple" in fan magazines, etc. This is the part that I was missing before, but I really should have thought of it sooner. We should simply limit the list to couples with their own articles, such as Cliff and Nina, Greg and Jenny, etc. Having the caveat that the couples must pass the general notability guidline is the only realistic way I can think to make an objective criterion for inclusion. Implementing these two caveats will change the list drastically, and it may not be that much more work to build it up again from scratch as it would to convert it from its present state. Still, I am no longer of the opinion that the problems with the list cannot be fixed by editing, so deletion probably isn't appropriate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to delete. Soap Opera Digest and other publications don't just list a supercouple for the sake of being a supercouple. They are usually long-standing couples from their said series or have made a cultural impact through their series, etc. I see no reason to delete such article. I contest the proposition of this deletion. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Luke and Laura are a couple, but I wouldn't call them supercouple just because fans say so, reviewers say so, and this couple titillated viewers in the past with controversial decisions that shocked them. In fact, that would be either original research or biased. If someone favors or opposes calling them a supercouple, I must cite people's opinions in Reception.

Maybe "List of fictional supercouples", in spite of its simplicity, is not accurate title; how about "List of couples that are called supercouples"? ...Wait, maybe move should be requested after AFD is over. --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just fans calling Luke and Laura a supercouple. Are you purposely being antagonistic right now? You know why Luke and Laura are called a supercouple, why they are credited with having defined the term. Their wedding recorded the highest-ever ratings for an American daytime drama, with 30 million people tuning in to watch. Most prime time shows weren't even getting those kind of ratings, and most aren't getting those ratings today either. Elizabeth Taylor made a cameo appearance during the wedding, and Princess Diana reportedly sent champagne. The couple were featured on the covers of People and Newsweek and credited with having brought "legitimacy to daytime serials" and its fans by crossing boundaries and becoming celebrities in the mainstream media. That's why they are a supercouple and are credited with defining the term. The other couples called supercouples are not just called supercouples because of the fans either. It's whether newspapers and/or entertainment magazines and sites also name them supercouples. Or else this list wouldn't exist. As for your alternative title suggestion, not good. That can be said for any list dealing with terms that can be subjective. Good grief. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even a "subjective" argument to me doesn't hold water. That doesn't convince me why this list must be kept. The sources say that they are supercouple", yet, when the list is written as if couples were defined, instead of honoured or criticized, as "supercouples", that still grounds for questioning the execution of this list and the credibility of sources. As I said, there must be sources that says "Luke and Laura" do not fit the real definition of a supercouple, but at least there are sources that say Luke and Laure fit, otherwise. Boy, you do too many replies; why won't you ease your mind and then come up with a calmer yet stronger argument that would convince me to vote keep. By the way, there is a Soap Opera Digest article that picked the 20-years-later LaL rape storyline as the Best Storyline of 1998. --George Ho (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC

No, my arguments are not subjective. None of the keep arguments thus far are subjective. Only the delete arguments are. Your arguments make no sense. It's titled list of fictional supercouples because they are fictional, reliable sources say they are supercouples, and this is a list, just like sources say the characters listed on List of fictional antiheroes are antiheroes. It doesn't matter if you question whether (or disagree with) some of these couples or characters being called supercouples or anti-heroes. It doesn't matter that these terms can be subjective. Wikipedia has no policy against having articles on terms that can be subjective or against assigning such terms to characters or people. As long as they are supported by multiple, reliable third-party sources and follow the other guidelines, it's allowed. I repeat that we defer to reliable sources on Wikipedia. That's what you don't seem to understand. You link to WP:Verifiability, when you and the other delete arguers need to read over it. There are no reliable sources saying that Luke and Laura do not fit the real definition of a supercouple. That's why I say you're being antagonistic. Every reliable source, including scholarly sources, say Luke and Laura defined the term. I don't do "too many replies." I'm challening arguments using Wikipedia policies and guidelines, like you are supposed to be doing. I'm replying to anyone who has replied to me. I don't need to ease my mind and be calmer. I am calm. Am I screaming at you? No. You are the one who doesn't seem calm, with your condescending reply to me. As for convincing you to change your argument to "keep," no one can. Everyone familiar with soap opera topics on Wikipedia knows you get giddy over deleting any soap opera-related article. My arguments are stronger than yours because they're based in Wikipedia policies, guidelines and precedent. And I don't see what picking "the 20-years-later LaL rape storyline as the Best Storyline of 1998" has to do with this debate. Just more proof that the rape is a part of what made Luke and Laura so famous. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question without going non-sensical or antagonistic or anything: why would these sources call Luke and Laura a supercouple? Are they meant-to-be? Dysfunctional? Not-meant-to-be-but-cute? --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those questions make absolutely no sense, George. So you failed in trying not to sound non-sensical. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase, unless you know what I'm saying: Why do critics call Luke and Laura a "supercouple"? --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered that question. And their article obviously answers it if you need a more in-depth explanation. I'd truly prefer that you just don't ask me any more questions. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the introduction, and the intro is a mere long explanation of "I say a couple is a supercouple, so they are a supercouple because I say so". Am I missing something? --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you are talking about. The intro of the list, the Supercouple article and the Luke and Laura article are basing what supercouples are on reliable sources. It isn't about what one editor believes; that would be WP:OR. This is what I mean about you not responding to me anymore. You miss a lot of things. Your processing things in discussions has been one of the things you've been criticized for before. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think these sources are reliable? ...Oops... I just asked a question. I hope I've not hurt you, have I? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have hurt me. My brain. Because you keep asking stupid questions. They are reliable because WP:Reliable sources say so. If you think scholarly sources, high-profile newspapers and magazines, popular soap opera magazines and entertainment websites with fact-checking staffs are unreliable for a list of fictional supercouples, then you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - None of the above have seemed to address the fact that this list page is merely a duplicate (and a poor one at that) of Supercouple. - jc37 03:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I did address this. This list is not a duplicate of the Supercouple article, so I don't know how Jc37 can make that assertion. I said: "The Supercouple article is not a list page. It is a page defining and discussing the evolution of the term. It used to have some version of this list in the article and was split out, per WP:SPINOUT and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach. And this list has been well-maintained since 2008." This is a list. The Supercouple article is an actual article, and most of the couples here aren't even mentioned there. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I seriously think you could do with a reading of WP:LIST. If you did, you might see that Supercouple could indeed be considered a list. - jc37 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've read WP:LIST, and I very much fail to see how Supercouple could be considered a list. Saying that it's a list is absurd. It's an article actually discussing the term and how it relates to each of the genres it mentions, noting only some supercouples and plain popular couples for each genre. Aside from discussing some couples listed on this list, it's not a duplicate of this list. You seriously need to reconsider your arguments. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jc37 means this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if Jc37 means that, the Supercouple article is not like that. It's not a list. Plain and simple. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Why? Because you say so? I've been around the fiction debates a LONG time. And while it may also be a decent article, you will have to work hard to convince me that supercouple cannot be considered list. Oh and incidentally, you may find, should some deletionist decide to nominate it in the future, calling it a list may just be what saves it, due to how the various WP:N policies and guidelines seem to work. YMMV of course. Shrugs. - jc37 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        "Why? Because you say so?" can be directed back at you. It's not because I say so. It's because it's not a list, and I doubt any future deletionist would call it such. I don't care about convincing you that it's not a list. Any future deletionist can go right ahead and nominate it for deletion, just like one tried to get it deleted back in 2007. The article has improved a great deal since then, and including lists in it is actually partly why it was so bad. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I care, so explain yourself: why is this "list" a list? Not because "it's a list in a table format". --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to explain why this list is a list? What's that got to do with this discussion? That it's a list isn't in dispute. Just looking at it and WP:LISTS shows that it's a list. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... my bad; I must have inadvertently meant this list. All right, here's another question for each of you, but it's off-topic. Anonymous IP, why is "supercouple" not a list? Jc37, why is "supercouple" article a list? --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments for deletion are notably irrelevant. There is no requirement that an encyclopedic subject be a "serious" encyclopedic subject, and this seems the fundamental basis of the nomination and the delete opinions--they don't think the subject worthy. WP covers the world of popular entertainment just as much as it does more "serious" subjects; in fact, I'd say it covers the world of popular entertainment a great deal more thoroughly than it does almost all more serious (or conventional) subjects. this is an inbalance to be regretted, but it is not to be solved by cutting back the coverage of what we do well, rather by increasing the coverage where we are inadequate. Deletion nominations based on IDONTLIKEIT are a waste of energy and a disservice to the encyclopedia . There is adequate documentation both for the concept and many or most of the individuals, and that's enough to refute OR. Obvious;y there will be some duplication between any list page and the corresponding article--the article needs to give a few examples; the list includes all of them notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Only when the list would be both small and finite is there any point incorporating it into the article they are best maintained separately. (I did receive a notice of this discussion, but its the sort of AfD where I usually say something, and the sort of utterly misconceived nomination where I always try to say something, though my standard of politeness usually doesn't let me say something adequate to the occasion). There are many things in the world where I regret the very existence: MMA to take a recent example one. That I wish to know as little as possible about the subject doesn't make it want Wikipedia to not cover it for others. Popular culture is the strength of Wikipedia and we should cover it to the limit of reasonableness. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about me, then you misunderstand.

If I felt the subject wasn't worthy I would have nominated supercouple as well.

My issue is that the nominated page is chock full of mediocre references (and that's being charitable). It's an accumulation of WP:OR. If it wasn't, as someone above notes, why does it need to so forcefully state (both in hidden comments and even visibly on the page) that everything there is referenced and must be referenced? Even during this discussion, some junk has been removed. And those had the same sort of references that we're talking about here.

This isn't about inclusionism. You've seen me around enough to know by now I support lists. But this list is honestly not something that should be kept.

Anyway, go look at the list and at supercouple. This isn't just examples. If anything, supercouple has more examples than the list.

(As an aside I don't think I would have said "the strength", though I might have said "one of the strengths". But YMMV, of course...) - jc37 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. I'll just say that I stand by my comments and the other arguments for keep. Saying that this list is chock full of mediocre references when they are both popular culture and scholarly references for a popular culture topic is hilarious. Saying this article is an accumulation of WP:OR is so false it's hilarious. "Oh, yeah, it's an accumulation of WP:OR because some of the couples aren't considered supercouples by everyone." Very, very hilarious. Everything about the delete arguments is hilarious. And why are you always asking questions that have already been answered? You asked why does [this list] "need to so forcefully state (both in hidden comments and even visibly on the page) that everything there is referenced and must be referenced?" This was answered. I said: The only reason it has notices that reliable sources are used, as Jclemens points out, is because IP editors and newbie editors didn't seem to grasp that reliable sources are needed before they add a couple to this list and because these notes weren't having as much of an effect as hidden notes. The point is they don't serve to say "Please don't delete me, I'm reliably-sourced." They serve to say "You want a couple added? Then add them with a reliable source." The hidden notes are something editors likely forgot to remove.

Yeah, junk was removed by me,[7] just like it's always removed any time it's added to this list. Attracting OR is not a reason for deletion. How many times must that be repeated? As said, your and others' delete arguments are all about WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an accumulation of synthesis and OR because, well, it clearly is. I am fairly certain that there is a site out there which will say nearly any two celebrities is a supercouple. It's a pretty widely bandied term and concept. Supercouple handles this much better.

Do you have a reason for keeping besides "IWANTIT, YOU ALL DOTLIKEIT"? I don't see much of one besides disputing the sourcing issues (while at the same time, even you removed some junk, with similar sourcing issues).

How about a better question. Other than those listed under "see also" (which I mentioned). Name one item that is appropriately on the list which isn't already linked at supercouple. And after you do, feel free to explain how that item is BETTERHERETHANTHERE.... - jc37 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this list to be an accumulation of OR and synthesis, it would need to have couples listed that are tagged next to sources that aren't calling them supercouples, as well as couples tagged to sources that only call them popular couples, or something similar, but not a supercouple/power couple. Most of this list is not like that. I emphasize that most of it isn't, because I don't have access to all the sources and don't feel like checking the whole list. But most of what I have seen of this list, the sources I checked over the months (including sources like The Boston Herald which go in depth about why Jesse and Angie are a supercouple[8]), use the word "supercouple." It's only OR to you because you don't believe that we should be able to call any couple a supercouple just because a newspaper, magazine or entertainment site said so, even though these are exactly the type of sources that are going to be used for a popular culture topic such as this. There are also scholarly sources on the list, but those are not needed to list couples as supercouples. They may be needed to define the term, which they help to do in the intro, but they are just backup sources for some of the couples on this list. And while it may be true that there is a site out there which will say nearly any two celebrities are a supercouple, this list is about fictional supercouples and the term isn't thrown around when referring to fiction as much as you may think. If it was, this list would be a lot longer. People have definitely tried to add their favorite couples to it, only to have those couples repeatedly removed because there are no reliable sources calling the couples supercouples. Just look at how long List of fictional antiheroes is when compared to this list. For fiction, the term supercouple is still usually used when referring to American soap opera couples. Supercouple handles the term and concept better because it is an article about the term and concept. That's what articles on terms are supposed to do. This is a list. Your need to conflate the two pages is mind-boggling to me, and I don't want to hear anymore about how they are the same. Just like you are no doubt tired of hearing from me about how they aren't.

I have given very valid reasons for keeping this list. None of my comments have been based on WP:ILIKEIT. I removed junk from the list just like it is always removed from the list. For you to continue to harp on sourcing issues, as though this list is supposed to use scholarly sources for its supercouple listings and as though a decent list or article never attracts OR that needs to be removed is (as basically said before) hilarious.

You have eyes. You can see what is here that isn't there. Asking me to name one, when I obviously can, is ridiculous. And no more explaining the difference between that article and this list. We've been over that. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't this list be more like either List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters or List of Friends characters? Well, Tokyo Mew Mew and Friends are shows, but these lists have summaries; this list doesn't. This list contains names of couples and shows, but it should contain entries of receptions if this list must be kept. Why are these delete arguments considered IDON'TLIKEIT? I think they have good points about definition of an actual supercouple. For instance, Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady and Will Munson and Gwen Norbeck are considered a supercouple, but... you get the idea. --George Ho (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason george, is that some people are so entrenched in the inclusionist (IWANTIT) vs deletionist (IHATECRUFT) fiction wars that they aren't even looking beyond that. I don't condemn them for it. There is a LOT of nonsense that goes on in AfD imnsho. But in this case, the defense legions are misplaced. But when you've been at war so long sometimes everyone starts looking like the enemy... - jc37 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As if it not being like the lists George mentioned is a valid reason for deletion. If that's the case, go delete a lot of other lists that aren't like that. I see that your mindset is delete first, think about improvement later. You are correct that a lot of nonsense goes into AfDs. Your and George's arguments are proof of that. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with "I'm right" or "you are wrong" messages. Well, you do have a point that "List of fictional supercouples" is intended to list couples as a supercouples with sources, but I don't want to be perceived as wrong or right, and I don't want to perceive you as wrong or right. You have logics, and he has logics. Sources "verify" couples as supercouples, even if they defy actual definition of supercouple. Sometimes, "verification" and "original research" policies contradict each other, don't they? --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I see that your mindset is delete first, think about improvement later. You are correct that a lot of nonsense goes into AfDs. Your and George's arguments are proof of that." - Then you "see" incorrectly. And George and I are different people who have made different comments. (In some cases, quite different. For example, george has asked about the legitimacy of the term supercouple itself. I have not.) Lumping those who disagree with you into one group is a mistake. You end up not understanding and not listening, and just spend your time talking past people. Which is, unfortunately, what seems to be happening here. - jc37 06:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mistaken. George didn't even necessarily question the legitimacy of the term supercouple. What he did say was: "I wouldn't call [Luke and Laura a] supercouple just because fans say so, reviewers say so, and this couple titillated viewers in the past with controversial decisions that shocked them." I went over how that (with the exception of the last point) makes no sense. If we don't go by what fans and reviewers say, then how is a couple considered a supercouple? By scholars? If so, a scholar's opinion is still an opinion. It appears that George, like you, has his own definition of what a supercouple is. What the two of you don't seem to understand is that some of these couples are branded supercouples because of the level of popularity and impact (take Luke and Noah, for example), and the only reason some of these couples are called supercouples is because scholars named them that first. Not all of the couples on this list, but some. Then again, we've already established that the term supercouple can be subjective, which is one of the few things all of us can agree on in this debate. 31.193.133.159 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I too see no reason to delete, it lists a wide range of couples from all television series and it seems to be a good page to rely on for information. Creativity97 (Talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but perhaps this doesn't convince me why this list must be kept. Right now, I don't see any reasons to either delete or keep; this list is somehow flawed, like List of fictional antiheroes, which is yet to be nominated for AFD any time soon. The sources should have been used to cite people's opinions, not to cite a couple as part of the "supercouple" definition, in my humble opinion. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Since so many soaps have recently gone off the air we have to ask ourselves if keeping fancruft is really worthwhile.Wlmg (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, I used "cancellation" as an excuse for deletion, and I realized that it was a weak reason for deletion. Now I don't think "cancellation" should be a reason for either keep or delete; in fact, I've been rebutted by strong rationales before, and I'm grateful to see which works and doesn't work. --George Ho (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I completely understand the various points which have been outlined here on behalf of the deletion. The factuality and non-OR factor of Wikipedia pages does need attention and the slipping to fan pages from an actual encyclopedia is something we should consider strongly. However, I do not see the deletion of this particular page to be a step in that direction. I think this page has valid and reasonable information and quite correctly lists supercouples as the definition they are known. It also does not exaggurate, it keeps thing s quite simple naming only the most important couples. And as for the term 'supercouple' I think it is a valid one, and it has had significant impact on the soap opera genre as well as others. Without the success of Luke & Laura et al. future storywriting (of soaps) could have in a totally different direction. My point being, it is an important part of history to be present in Wikipedia. I do think the page needs cleaning and re-construction, maybe a whole update on it. But deletion - no. Allukka (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As Mr. S said, this AFD is controversial, and the list itself becomes controversial because "supercouple" is a vague term. Perhaps, like a list of films in the public domain in the United States, this list needs revamping. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's controversal, due to what I said higher. The list certainly has never been controversial, unless we count the arguments for delete in this discussion. I'm not sure if you are suggesting another title, one which would make this list too broad and defeat its purpose by not having "supercouple" in its title, but that's not the solution. Like I said higher, "since no one has responded to my suggestion to rename the list as List of soap opera supercouples, how about renaming it as List of fictional couples considered supercouples? This is similar to List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Although I don't understand how adding these qualifiers is any different than the current title, since it should be clear to readers already that any time we say 'Supercouple,' 'Best film,' 'Greatest song,' "Best athlete,' the terms are being used subjectively (less so for supercouple because of the reasons I've already given)." 31.193.133.159 (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFD are not substitutes for requested moves; that's the reason no one responds here. Look, do not accuse anybody for making gibberish or nonsensical things or being wrong or something else. I would not consider myself inferior, regardless of accusations. I have good faith on you and everyone else here. Why not simply asking: "I could not understand what you are saying; can you elaborate?" or "Why are you saying this?" rather than "You're wrong, and the definition is right"? --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercouples is pretty good evidence that this list has been controversial in the past. The rename might be a good idea, as it fits in nicely with my caveats above, though I don't think it's essential. But whether we should rename or not, I agree with George that the best place to bring it up would be a requested move after this AfD discussion is over. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or alternatively merge to supercouple This article has at times been a nightmare to work on, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. The big problem here is that every fanboy/girl that comes along tries to add their favorite soap/primetime/comic couple to the list without reliable sources. Can the list be tightened? Absolutely. I think each entry should have multiple, good reliable sources, but I don't think the list needs to be scrapped. I will say the "See also" section should be deleted, as its just a list of couples someone likes and has decided to amend to the end of the article. AniMate 08:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge back to Supercouple, but if so, the list page should be deleted, before redirecting. - jc37 08:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the list page be deleted before redirecting? Wouldn't it be necessary to retain the history in order to preserve attribution of merged content? Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You can't delete and merge. AniMate 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (message) 11:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roshonara Choudhry

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

Despite the press coverage because the target was an MP, Choudry is known only for this single attack, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. in addition, this type of incident would generally be titled "Attack on Stephen Timms" rather than using the prepetrator's name, but I think that title shows up how unimportant this is outside of a few lines in Timms' entry (where it is already covered in its own section). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate q been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BLP1E, "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented." In fact, that clause is illustrated by reference to another failed assassin (albeit of a President). Not to get all waxy, but by way of further illustration, Jared Lee Loughner, is quite comparable to the article being discussed here. TJRC (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is obvious. No Islamist in the UK has attacked anyone of such a high profile as far as I'm aware, it's the first attempt by al-Qaeda or one of its sympathisers at a political assignation in Britain.[9]. She's the most notable female Islamist attacker there has been in the UK and the life sentence may suggest notability. The victim was not just a politician from any party, but Labour were actually governing at the time. No mitigating factors such a mental illness, lack of education/intelligence or lack of pre-meditation. Case has wider repercussions such as raising awareness of the impact of radical Islamist websites and videos and led to calls for the US to take down such material.[10] She still gets mentioned in the news, for example a quick search of Google news shows 14 mentions in the last five days alone. The article needs expansion, not deletion and I also note that the editor who created the bulk of the article has not been notified of this AFD.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While the assailant has stated that they were influenced by the sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki, I'm not aware that she claimed to be acting as a member of al-Qaeda. Do you have any basis for your claim that this was "the first attempt by al-Qaeda at a political assasignation in Britain". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well maybe the source I provided immediately after the sentence in question could be worth a look? Can I ask what you edit summary "Careful with That Axe, Eugene" means please? My name isn't Eugene and some of your other summaries aimed at me haven't been appreciated either (for example I'm not a "lady").--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source calls Choudry an "al-Qaeda fanatic" but makes no claim that she was a member of al-Qaeda. In fact, it suggests the opposite, stating she had "no direct contact or other encouragement from extremists". This may be helpful (although the "axe" in this case is the political/ideological axe that you seem to be grinding here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not grinding any axe whatsoever thank you very much and I suggest you strike that comment immediately. I haven't really read up extensively on her exact affiliations and perhaps she only is an al-Qaeda sympathiser rather than a confirmed member (I'll tweak the comment above to reflect that), but it's abundantly clear that she' notable enough for an article regardless of her precise allegiances. As with others I find it very bizarre that anyone would even attempt to delete this article. This year you have submitted three articles for deletion which were either created by me and or where I'm the second most prolific contributor. All 3 concern female criminals of Indian or Bangladeshi heritage or their crimes and you're still yet to gain a single comment agreeing with your stance in any one of the AFDs. [11][12] In one of them you personally attacked me and refused to remove the attack after begin asked to do so by an admin and you still haven't apologised for doing so [13] Also, care to explain you latest edit summary? Thanks--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the sources, the subject appears to be noted in more detail than the 1 event is. Like TJRC I searched our articles of other failed assassins such as John Hinckley, Jr. and this doesn't appear inconsistent with them. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugely notable. I cannot imagine why this has been nominated, since BLP1E is clear that it does not apply where "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". An assassination attempt on an MP is not only significant, it's virtually unheard-of, and the individual was the actual would-be assassin - a substantial and well-documented role by any description. I should also mention WP:CRIME, which lists two conditions, both of which are satisfied here (only one needs to be met for the article to meet the requirements of WP:CRIME): 1) the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; and 2) the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Prioryman (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently unusual person and event, received extended coverage. Passes notability requirements as mentioned by previous commenters. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Allow me to quote from WP:CRIME:
A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
As stated in the nomination, the incident is already covered in a separate section of Timms' article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet material such as Choudhry's background and how she acted in court would be undue not to mention irrelevant to the biography of Timm's yet help to give a better understanding of both Choudhry and the event which is why it should be in a separate article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIME is a useful guideline, but WP:BLP1E is policy. "[I]f a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence." WP:POLCON. At best, you make an argument that WP:CRIME should be updated to resolve any apparent conflict with WP:BLP1E; not that the guideline should be followed instead of the policy. TJRC (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the creator of the article of this AfD. The nom's good-faith notification actually went to the editor who created an initial redirect to the Stephen Timms article, rather than to the editor who actually created the article qua article. I presume this was a consequence of Twinkle automation or the like. I consider this notification consistent with WP:AFDHOW ("Notifying substantial contributors to the article"). TJRC (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I was quoting WP:CRIME to offset the patently misleading earlier reference to it made by another editor. I agree that policy should not be superseded by guidelines, but I think you and I interpret BLP1E differently with regard to how important is in a historical context. Thank you for notifying the article creator. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be like saying that Sirhan Sirhan or John Wilkes Booth are not notable by themselves, although we are supposed to assume the nomination was made with the best of intentions. I agree with this: Notability is obvious. No Islamist in the UK has attacked anyone of such a high profile as far as I'm aware, it's the first attempt by al-Qaeda or one of its sympathisers at a political assignation in Britain. Redhanker (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Franklin M. Davis, Jr#Writing. If there is anything sourceable to merge, it can be done from the history. Sandstein 08:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spearhead (novel)

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

No indication this is anything but a run-of-the-mill war novel. Nothing but a single low amazon.com rating. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The novel is by Franklin M. Davis, Jr who is a notable person. Also, there can be found a good number of results when you Google 'Spearhead (novel)' so I dont think this should be deleted. Yash t 101 :) 05:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only problem is that notability is not inherited by the author being a notable person (WP:NOTINHERITED) and not many people are so historically significant that all of their books achieve notability by comparison. To get to that level you have to be someone like Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe, or the like. I don't see where Davis has that level of significance. Also, google hits by themselves do not show notability. (WP:GHITS) You must find independent and reliable sources per WP:RS to show that the book has notability. I like saving book entries, so I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to comment on the keep argument since neither of these things are considered arguments that would keep the book. Just be aware that due to the age of the book and that it seems to be sort of a pulp novel, that reliable sources might be very hard to find. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move into the section of books on the author's page. While the article is really only two sentences and a picture, those two sentences could be of use to someone wanting to know what kind of books the General wrote.Jacqke (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find those 'good results', and Tokyogirl79 is correct, notability is not inherited and a notable person can write a rubbish book. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a real novel; however lackluster the article itself is. LogicalCreator (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The question is not whether it exists (nobody is disputing that), but whether it is one of the tiny percentage that is notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with author. Can't find online references to establish notability, but reviews etc about book from 1958 are likely to be in off-line sources. Can't do any harm to merge and redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect/userfy. I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean that sources might not be out there. Right now it'd be best to merge what we can and redirect to the author's page. I don't have any problem with someone userfying the book until it's properly sourced. As far as the keep arguments go, we don't keep articles because the subject of them exists (WP:ITEXISTS) or because it could potentially be useful to someone (WP:ITSUSEFUL). For an article to be kept we must have reliable sources that show notability, which I just couldn't find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author. Merge would be fine if there was any sourced content, but as this is currently entirely unsourced there is no sourced content to merge. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward George Turner

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He and his partner are described as pioneers by the BFI here. But it looks like an article on the joint Walturdaw company would be more appropriate than this single stub biography as it has a number of Wikilinks in waiting. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets every requirement of the Wikipedia GNG. Founded the first film rental company in Britain and one of the first sound synchronization systems. He and his company are recognized by multiple reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

his company may be notable but does not mean he is. "Founded the first film rental company in Britain and one of the first sound synchronization systems" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While GNG doesn't specifically mention which people that do things first - belong or do-not belong in Wikipedia, it does say: "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." The references provided do represent "significant coverage in reliable sources" especially the 1926 multiple page and multiple issue biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a clearly credible claim of notability and the sources provided back that up. The types of achievements that Turner made would provide ample coverage if such a person lived today, and the technological and marketing changes he introduced to the field were revolutionary for his time. That so many sources could be found for someone who lived in a time perios that is laregely a blind spot for Wikipedia only affirms to me that the subject is notable. Alansohn (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is trying hard and establishes some notability, but needs to be copyedited and if possible expanded with additional info. But what the heck is that External Link and why is it there? Its presence looks like padding, begs the question, and makes the article look suspect. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem that he deserves an article. A comparable figure in Hollywood would certainly be covered, and it has to be remembered that the European film industry was very important at that period. As for the link to the film 'How a British Bulldog saved the Union Jack' the significance is revealed only if one clicks the expand button on the linked page under production details. It was made by Walturdaw. I have added his chairmanship of trade bodies and it does seem that he had standing in the industry. --AJHingston (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Article can be reworked, but doesn't need to hit the trash. Lord Roem (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, now that reviews have been found and sources have been added. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbriar (novel), The Spirit House, Parasite Pig

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

These are 3 unsourced articles on books that appear to in no way pass any of the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. I cannot find any reviews published in reliable sources, they do not appear to have won any literary awards, they do not appear to have made a significant contribution to the arts, they do not appear to be taught in schools, and the author himself is not inherently notable enough to have his notability extend to his works. —Ryulong (竜龙) 08:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are heaps of reviews, including from Orson Scott Card. However, WP bores me. There can be no victory over the animu clan. Shards. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that such reviews exist?—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote the original entry for cat here on WP, I don't have to follow the dictates of the johnny-come-lately citation mafia. I know what is notable; I know what is not. However, I am feeling generous... http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?6573 ASHLEY GREYSON 1988, ORSON SCOTT CARD 1988; Hugo/Nebula winnign sci fi author; http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?154130 Parasite Pig multiple reviews -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up that you have some magical sort of seniority over me or the project in general when you have no way to back up those claims. That seems to be a recurring theme in your work, as you do not see fit to keep up with the times and write articles that have references to back up things you state. The current rules and regulations of Wikipedia are what you should be adhering to, and there is no amount of things you state (writing the first version of cat, which cannot frankly be proven, being a classicist) to change that fact. I would find that your insistence that sources are not necessary is not at all welcome in any academic community, and this being an online encyclopedia should be no different than if you were to be proposing something to be published in an academic journal. This means that you need to show that individual books are notable on their own, unless the author is some sort of paragon in the field that everything he has written is notable because he is. I do not find this latter piece to be the case for Mr. Sleator.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were the first animu defender I've tangled with here on WP, I would gladly outline the reasons why 250,000 Pokechu articles doesn't add up to a single 1977 Hong Kong bestseller. Unfortunately, you are something like the 5000th (5th this week). So, unfortunately i have to be a bit abrupt. All fields are not created equal. The fact that some US universities are now giving out Master's degrees in animu studies does not mean that pop culture is now a topic of serious academic inquiry. Fifty thousand years from now, pop culture lists/catalogs will just be an entry in some database somewhere, but the work of mathematicians, lyric poets, and other academic fields will still be considered notable. There's no way to communicate this point *I've tried*, but pop culture is just.. trivia. Trainspotting is also trivia Planespotting is trivia. It's just life; I didn't make the rules. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N & WP:OR. If sources exist, as alluded to above, they need to be added to the articles. Tagging article for clean up at that point seems like a good idea as well. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those two reviews for Blackbriar from Fantasy Review, December 1986 and Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, August 1988 are enough to meet the standard at WP:Book. As additional factors of notability , it is held in 599 libraries , which is very high for young people's SF so many years after first publication, and has been translated into German and Danish. I added the refs for all that. As Paradise Pig is held in even more libraries, it is presumably notable also, The spirit house is held in as many libraries,and is discussed in the standard textbook, Polette, Nancy, and Joan Ebbesmeyer. Literature Lures: Using Picture Books and Novels to Motivate Middle School Readers.. We're supposed to be objective: our standards should not depend on who wrote the article or on how they are behaving. As the reviews asked for by the nom. have been forthcoming, I suppose he will withdraw the nomination, instead of letting the other editor get him involved in irrelevant arguments. ISFDB is an obvious enough source that it should have been checked before making the statemnt there were no reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being in libraries does not translate into notability and there was no knowledge of this information at the time of the nomination. It still stands that the articles are unsourced and full of what may be original research.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews have been found and so the topics are notable. Warden (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just wanted to say that the articles should probably be tidied up and have the non-usable sources removed, such as the links to WorldCat. They don't show notability at all and they don't really enhance the article as far as trivial information go, as most of what they're backing up would be the type of thing that's deleted as trivia overall, such as being in 901 libraries. We don't mention how many libraries The DaVinci Code is in because it's just needless trivia and all things considered, it's actually a little hard to verify that the info in WorldCat is completely up to date. It's information that is not only needless trivia, but would potentially be constantly changing. I'm not arguing for or against notability, just that in an attempt to save the articles people are linking to sources that don't really show notability. I'm not entirely convinced of the link to the teaching page- I want to see if we can find links to teacher outlines and other things from actual schools that show that it's being taught in a wide range of schools. It's better to find the lesson plans from individual schools than to link to a commercial website. I also sort of have a problem with someone linking to a page that shows that Locus reviewed Parasite Pig, but doesn't actually have any quotes from the review or anything to that extent. I'll see what I can find, but we just need to be careful that we're linking to sources correctly. (I hate to sound like the sourcing brat, but poorly linking to stuff and overly linking to trivial sources that don't show notability just comes across as trying too overly hard.) I also want to state that it might be better for some of the books to be merged into other articles, such as Parasite Pig to be merged and redirected into Interstellar Pig into a section entitled "sequel" or "followup". It's better to have one strong article that references both books than to keep a weak one around. It can always be merged back when/if more sourcing becomes available. I've got time this afternoon so I'll see what I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've found enough sources to show that Parasite Pig meets notability guidelines. I've started on Blackbriar and have removed all of the original research that was in the article and cleaned it up some. I've a few sources, so I'll work on adding those.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got Blackbriar covered. I had to use my school's database, but it's totally covered now and it reads a lot cleaner than it did before. The thing for anyone wanting to add back some of the previous information, please make sure that you source it with reliable sources, otherwise it's just pure original research. I'm going to work on Spirit House now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a little shaky on The Spirit House, as the reviews for that book are fairly light (although there were some that I couldn't find), but I've found more than enough for Blackbriar and Parasite Pig to show that they meet book notability guidelines. I've cleaned up all of the articles and removed anything that smacked of original research. There's no reason to delete these now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Unclear why a merger with some movie was suggested, as this does seem to be a non-fictional school. Sandstein 08:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A.A.N.M&V.V.R.S.R POLYTECHNIC

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

Normally, I would not nominate this for deletion since it is a school, but sadly I was not able to find enough reliable sources to establish its notability. My respect for Indian schools is alright after I watched 3 Idiots but I still believe that this school just isn't notable enough. Yes it is a college, which normally is notable, but I could not find sources about this particular college. Its founder apparently had founded many other schools, all of which also seem to be non-notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep tertiary instituions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian colleges because, unlike US colleges, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this polytechnic cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly for this particular college, I only found one non-Wikipedia hit on Google, and surprise, it is a Facebook page. I would also like to point out a quote I found on the article guidelines about schools. (Yes it is not a policy, but nevertheless it should [usually] be followed).

It is recommended that editors only create a school article when its content shows that it already passes the notability guideline by displaying significant coverage in reliable sources.

.

I did find more hits with "AANM&VVRSR", but sadly they were not reliable sources. I do hope someone finds sources though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colleges are normally considered inherently notable, like secondary schools and universities. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As suggested by User:Narutolovehinata5, the article about the fictional college can be merged in with the article about the movie 3 Idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanclawz (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna Booher

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

Suggest deletion as not notable. Since this article's creation it reads as just a self promotional piece. Improving it would be hard, as google searches only appear to link to other advertorial articles. Therefore , it appears unlikely that any independent and reliable bio info on this person exists. The fact that this individual has published books, does not in itself meet our notability guidelines either. The sentence: “Booher is the chief executive of Booher Consultants, Dallas, Texas-based consultancy that gives companies advice on communication and productivity.” appears repeatedly across the web, suggesting the same copywriter is responsible for this article too. If not, then half the text is a copyvio too. --Aspro (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable enough. Listed her name in the New York Times. Quite a few books published. LogicalCreator (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sufficient to establish notability. Read WP:GNG. Anyone can publish books, and simply having your name listed doesn't meet the requirement for substantial, in-depth coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I've found a couple of shortish reviews of her books.[14][15] A Forbes article discusses her ideas.[16] She's also mentioned more briefly in other publications, e.g. cited as an expert in LA Times, NY Times, Houston Chronicle, Business Week, USA Today[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Also, world's shortest review.[25]. She seems to be a leading expert in business communication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as the LA Times is concerned, being an expert in "Career Transitions for Journalists." [26] doesn’t equate to being able to give a peer review. Like all the other columnist reviews mentioned, these are to be viewed as nothing more than editorial commentary and opinion pieces. It is unwise to to take too much notice of them: [27]. Had this author any standing and notability in within the academia fraternity it would not be this hard to uncover something of substance. Therefore, this it is baffling to see how this author can be thought of as coming within WP policy of notable either.--Aspro (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (converse) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brînduşa Armanca

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

What this individual has had is known as a career - a not uninteresting one, but a path shared by millions nonetheless. Nothing particularly sets her apart. Also, as far as I could tell, she headed not the European Union National Institutes for Culture (not that that would matter terribly) but its Budapest office, an even lower claim to notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her law suit(s) against TVR and the surrounding controversy and political implications (cited to the US State Department and IREX) with the other stuff seem to me sufficient for general notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the entry itself does not give adequate clue as to the subject's standing, and her bureaucratic position may not on its own validate the article, she is perhaps notable enough as an author and public figure. Consider this, this, this, this, this (the bio at the end, mainly), this, this, this, this (165-6) or this. Leaving out the puff pieces and the Greater Romania Party attack pages, this might constitute significant coverage. Dahn (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Out! (band)

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

I see nothing to indicate this group passes WP:BAND. This is a blog post or, if we're generous, a strongly promotional piece in a local newspaper. This is a canonical blog post. So is this. And this. This is a promotional blurb in a local paper featuring a clip of their first single.

Finally, we come to the Guardian article, which is less than the article makes it out to be. The article presents 38 "best" songs from March 2012, from 38 different countries, with a very short comment on each band. This doesn't qualify as significant coverage for any of them. Moreover, the quoting is, shall we say, selective: The Guardian did use the phrase "one of the best musical products Romania has to offer" in relation to Lights Out!, but in the following context (emphasis mine): "Lights Out! could be one of the best musical products Romania has to offer". Tellingly, that qualifier was omitted.

In sum, the lack of independent, non-trivial coverage means we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This band needs to win some award, get a proper review, something, before this article can be considered anything but promotional. Lights should really be on before they're out; at this stage, it's more of a light fixtures not in service. Dahn (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real indication of notability - one self-published EP and second place in a "Rock Your High School" competition? - and the sources are too weak for the GNG or WP:MUSIC. One for the future, I think. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fosse8, good argument. Lord Roem (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Drum

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

Does not seem to be notable. I didn't find any reliable sources. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present the article has three sources, but they only confirm the existence of this instrument and I doubt that it is actually notable. Inter change able|talk to me 00:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article consists mostly of instructions on how to use it, a violation of WP:NOT. —Hue Sat Lum 00:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both Google book search and Google scholar search produce enough coverage in reliable sources to base an article on. The present article has some issues, but the topic is notable. --Lambiam 22:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per Lambian. The WP:NOHOWTO concern is a matter of style that can be addressed by editing, as I have done. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Perhaps this article could be merged with Water drum? They seem to be the same instrument. LogicalCreator (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A water drum has water between the membranes, while an ocean drum has little steel balls of the kind used in ball bearings. The water drum is a traditional instrument of various ethnic groups, whereas the ocean drum is a relatively recent Western invention used in music therapy. --Lambiam 12:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. No longer WP:HOWTO: has been edited, and some information on how an instrument is played would seem essential to me. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. It's a real instrument and distinct from the water drum, which is a different instrument. MichiHenning (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have struck my earlier comment, as it no longer applies. —Hue Sat Lum 18:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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