Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 June	17 June >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Grossman

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

Non-notable physician, nothing but press releases found at Google News, nothing significant found at Google Scholar. Unreferenced since 2005. MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no independent WP:RS for this person to merit an article at wikipedia. Likely not notable enough. --Artene50 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, seems mostly promotional content. Main claim to fame seems to be Ray Kurzweil's life extension advisor. JFW | T@lk 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Puffery coverage of appearance on talk shows. A few published papers, some in marginal journals and with next to zero cites by science standards. Articles itself has no usable refs. EEng (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Kennedy

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

City clerk, lacking coverage in reliable sources,fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG Valenciano (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local offices such as this are inherently non-notable, barring significant third party coverage. In this case, there is none. DarkAudit (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - nomination to delete should cite WP policy rather than personal bias of the nominator (i.e. please define "such as this are inherently non-notable" and where in WP policies deletion is warranted.) -Davodd (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that, WP:POLITICIAN: she fails part one as she is not a member of a national or state legislature. She fails part two as she is clearly not a major political figure who has received press coverage and as for part three of that criteria where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"? I can't find it and it's up to you to produce such references if they exist not up to us to prove negatives. What is your argument for keep? That you dislike what we have pointed out? WP:ILIKEIT is not a sufficient argument. Valenciano (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Policies have been cited, but for your benefit I'll address them one by one. "1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices." City clerk fails point one of WP:POLITICIAN. It is a local, not a state or national office. "2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Not only has there not been significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, there hasn't been much of any coverage to meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:POLITICIAN. "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Like I said. Coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. I actually cited a policy. You accused me of bias and then failed to cite a policy that the article or subject met. DarkAudit (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*'Keep - Looks like another personal notice for deletion. We as admins must not make these personal assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Blocked indef as a sock of a blocked user, per checkuser. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above user is not an admin. Just a note. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above above user is not only not an admin (on their first day? C'mon, man!), but is under investigation for misconduct at WP:ANI#Socks and meats. DarkAudit (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it fails relevant notability policies. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:BIO & WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, DarkAudit. —Hahc 21 15:37, 23 June 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 Procedural close - wrong xfd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainologist

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

Bizarre, self-promotional neolgism for a borderline non-notable chef/writer. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Speedy Close Page is a redirect linked to the Lulu Powers article, also nominated for deletion. This page is now in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 18. DarkAudit (talk) 08:33, 18 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Powers

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

Appears to be an advert for a borderline non-notable writer/chef. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism, non-notable, and lacking in reliable sources. References are blogs. DarkAudit (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Entertainologist redirects to this article and should be deleted along with the article if that is the consensus of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable chef failing GNG. —Hahc 21 15:39, 23 June 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. Difficult: most mentions are minor and/or press releases. However, one fairly significant source appears to exists. Closing as no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwire, Inc.

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

non-notable company--few clients, small size. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia company notability guidelines for information on what is considered notable by the community. The definition of notability is whether or not the organization has attracted the notice of "reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." In my opinion, Shipwire meets the guidelines for notability. See article for list of sources. "Few clients" is a not a criterion for notability. There are firms such as Carahsoft that have one main client but are indisputably notable. Charlie Liang (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather disingenuous to equate the US government with Rovio Entertainment. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intention wasn't to be devious but rather prove my point that number of clients is not a reliable basis for notability. Also, this criterion is not called out in Wikipedia's notability guidelines.Charlie Liang (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half the sources are from the company itself, the other half are puff and press releases. Obvious delete. EEng (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone struggling with the obfuscatory marketing jargon in this article the English translation is that this is a warehousing and shipping company that uses computers. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't resist pointing out that if we could find a warehousing and shipping company that, in this day and age, does not use computers, then that would certainly be notable. EEng (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to remove the obfuscation from the article, but it still reads more like a marketing brochure than an encyclopedia article. In particular I'm stumped by "The SaaS provider is currently used by companies such as Rovio to store and fulfill physical goods." Surely warehouses and trucks store and fulfill physical goods, or has software got so much cleverer since I retired from the industry that it can dematerialise physical goods and contain them within itself and teleport them? Or is this just another attempt to shoehorn a trendy buzzword into the article without any thought as to what the sentence containing it actually means? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared up the nebulous wording. It should be more straightforward now. Charlie Liang (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep: per NBC and Forbes.-- Dewritech (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each source you mention has a maximum of three sentences relating to the subject -- hardly significant coverage. Anything else you can offer us? EEng (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Street Journal has more than three sentences, so my keep isn't weak any more.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it's sourceable, but the sources found do not discuss the company in great length or depth. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Small Business Trends and Practical Ecommerce for product reviews Charlie Liang (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are those sources reliable? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentions in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, NBC Bay Area, and TechCrunch seem enough to meet WP:CORP to me. Steven Walling • talk 03:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of what turns up at Google News is press releases disguised as articles, but there are a few solid articles such as the WSJ one cited by Dewritech which are probably enough to meet WP:CORP. Article would be a lot better if it were rewritten in English instead of jargon (this is a company that stores and ships merchandise on behalf of other companies), and if some of these better sources were cited. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 23 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 14:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Engine

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

As I read through the article, I am noticing a lot of unambiguous advertisement. The article is not worded very well, and there are no references in the article. Ceradon ^talk_contribs 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - remember that the criterion isn't that the article is well written (a matter for editing), nor even that it's well sourced, but that good sources exist so the article can be brought up to standard. The article is certainly a bit scrappy right now - it has a long editing history, and refs are badly needed, but sources do exist. Some of them seem to be quite substantial:

Studio Daily, 2006

Creative Planet

Media that Matters Film Festival (video) 2008

PBS (bio of Katy Chevigny) 2008

Documentaries, 2010 (with poster we could use)

NYTimes, 2004 (brief mention)

... and there are certainly more sources out there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article seems to have served a purpose for over 5 years now. During that time, it does seem odd that this has not come up before given the references are external links. This article needs a good comb through it to become anything worth note. keystoneridin! (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE. Chiswick Chap is correct. The article's current state presents issues that are adressable through regular editing and use of available sources. I do understand the nom's worries, but he might take a look at WP:IMPERFECT and WP:HANDLE. We generally do not delete notable topics that simply need some editorial attention, even if they have been suffering from a lack of that editorial attention. See WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL#CONTENT, WP:ATD, and the essays WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE and per WP:NRVE. Cavarrone (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Big Bang Theory characters and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Kim

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

Article created by a friend of the subject[1], fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any sources except the odd passing mention. Only one which is indepedant and not a passing mention is [2] that was published back in 2010. Having a disambiguation page may be an option too.--Otterathome (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant vandalism, none notable person.Seasider91 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about her in reliable sources although I can find mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this was originally created as a redirect to The Big Bang Theory character, and I think it should return to this. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 23 June 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 closed, wrong forum. Anyone is free to nominate this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if they believe it ought to be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency)

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

There has never been a Clerkenwell constituency, the page redirects to Finsbury Central, and no pages link to it Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This is a redirect not an article and so the discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not here at Articles for deletion. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 June 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. Obvious NEO delete as per discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tooch

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neologism. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was just going to prod it for the same reasons. Fails WP:NEO. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tyra Banks. Possible move to Wiktionary. BLEAKGH (ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ) 17:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17, which was the path chosen the last time Ms. Banks came up with a neologism, "smize". But this shouldn't be retained as is, as per WP:NEO. Ubelowme (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. It would only be worthy of a merge if discussed in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced WP:NEO that Ms. Banks WP:MADEUPONEDAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 23 June 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. Clear consensus for either a keep as is, or a move to a new title, but not for deletion, redirecting or merging. Whether it eventually should be renamed or not can be discussed at the talk page of the article (preferably with a link to this discussion, so that the comments in this AfD are taken into account as well). Fram (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rangers Football Club Ltd

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

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

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

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

No notability independent from Rangers F.C.. We don't have articles about the parent company vehicles of other football clubs. It is possible that this corporate entity will set up a genuinely new football club, but we don't know that yet. ~~I suggest that this be a redirect to Rangers F.C. until the picture becomes clearer.~~ I suggest this page is moved to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., which would allow a more comprehensive article about the issues at hand. James Morrison (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. and rewrite accordingly. I would have started already, but am not willing to write whilst users are summarily redirecting/unredirecting articles, pushing 3RR to its limits in the process. —WFC— 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under current title for now and expand as appropriate. If the attempt to get in to the SPL or some other league is successful, it would make sense to change the title to 'Rangers 2012' or something else suitable. If is it unsuccessful, it may be that 'Liquidation of Rangers FC' may be more appropriate. However, a redirect to Rangers FC of this article is totally inappropriate as it gives the impression that the club is continuing - the reality is that liquidation means the end of this club, perhaps to be reformed, but as a different entity. I suggest that, just like for Halifax Town AFC and FC Halifax Town, two articles would be required should a reforming of Rangers be successful. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., along the lines of Middlesbrough F.C. survival from liquidation. The company liquidation is an obvious candidate for spinning off from any relevant section of Rangers F.C. and deserves coherent coverage. Per nom, the company name has no notability outside the liquidation processs of Rangers F.C. Though by the time this AfD closes, matters will doubtless have changed. FWIW, and bearing in mind I don't know enough detail about either club/company/legalities to make a sensible comparison, Middlesbrough was liquidated, reformed as a newco, kept its Football League share, and has one WP article for pre- and post-liquidation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Middlesbrough were saved before the liquidation process was completed, by arranging a deal that was acceptable to both creditors and the League. The situation with Rangers is that an agreement with creditors has been rejected by HMRC and that complete liquidation is now inevitable. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, without access to relevant sources I couldn't comment. Whether we have one or two club articles in the future, though, the bit in between still needs its own article, as detailed coverage of the liquidation/reformation process would be undue weight in either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Halifax Town example, were any assets / players transferred to the new organisation? I note also that they have differing crests and strips. "New Rangers" is expected to keep the same strip, crest, stadium, etc, so in that respect is probaly closer to the case of Fiorentina, although that club had a transitional period. Also worth noting is that while Rangers Football Club were founded in 1872, the business known as "The Rangers Football Club Plc" was not registered until sometime later (1899 I believe), and it is the Plc which is being liquidated - if there is to be a seperate article for each stage of the business side, surely then there would then have to be three articles? AlexGordovani (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment the problem is the soruces and amdinsitrators, liquidators, consurtium are all saying teh club isnt getting liqudiated only hte company tha towns it, but there was never a page on rangers fc plc it was part of the rangers fc article maybe that needs to be made but this article is about thew new company that owns the clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keeprewrite as it should be about the company that owns the club as the articles endltd and that the company the club is the rangers footballl clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC) commentdnt merge to new article on liquidation although i agree a liquidation article is required this article was created to try make it liek the new club but in fact the fact they put LTD in means it is about the company so the article need cleaned up an rewrttien to reflect the company that owns the club, this page was also made against conesus in teh first place as it was decided until more details are known that to keep it on the rangers fc page and if anytihng it should merger there but everything here is on that page toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD ARE A NEW CLUB GLASGOW RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC NO LONGER EXIST SO THE NEW CLUB DESERVES ITS OWN PAGE END OF STORY !!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.158.219 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there no new club according to source it is just new company that own the old club, but the article can remain but it has to detail the copmpany not a club that doesnt exist, plc and ltd are the companies not club!!!!Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate whatsoever,Rangers FC 1873 are now defunct the newco are a completely different enterprise and therefore deserve their own page,all that took place was an asset sale,Rangers FC ceased to exist, this was not a takeover,its entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.175.58 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New club full stop. There has to be a new page, this is not a debate. Old club spent lots of money they didn't have on players for the team. The club is being liquidated and this page is about the new club. Only link to old club is they owner bought the assets of the old club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.216.194 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

both ip contruibations back it up with sources as bbc and many other state the plc is getting liquidate dnot the club personal i disagreed but i cant put my POV inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC (1872) is being liquidated - that means the club is coming to an end. However the spirit of the club lives on in the fans who will rally round the replacement club planned by The Rangers Football Club Ltd. That the company plans to run a football club is not in doubt as it has already applied to the SFA and SPL. When the 'old' Rangers comes to an end, it makes sense to rename the Rangers F.C. article, 'Rangers F.C, (1872)' and when The Rangers Football Club Ltd succeeds in getting a license from the SFA, it makes sense to rename 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' as either 'Rangers F.C' or 'Rangers F.C (2012)'. Those decisions can wait until later. However, what is clear that the club is being liquidated and a new club is being forged to replace it - Wikipedia has to reflect that. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

all the sources says is the plc is getting liquidated they state the club contunies, we cant go against what the sources state, personal i believe the club is dead and it is hte club getting liquidated but sources say differentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to look for reliable sources here. Clearly Charles Green wants the fans to believe that the club is continuing as it is in his business interests. However, Charles Green did not buy the club (ie the company that owns it) - he bought the assets. The club remains tied to the PLC that is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this example from STV news[3]: "Clubs will have to vote on whether to admit a 'newco' Rangers after the Glasgow club began preparing for liquidation under the weight of enormous debts." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily post other sources that confirm what you say and ones that say the oppioste to it and say the club survivoes and it contunie and it tis the plc that is dissovle nto the club, this is the major problem no one knows as escape orbit has said on teh rangers page lets jsut wait and see and ocne it is known we will make all neccessary changes to amek that article and this article if needed and other but not until it is known it is pure speculcation and pov, my perosnal view is the club is dead and is dissolved but that is my povAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is for the New Club/Company. Andrew Rangers Football Club(that existed from 1872) is a company, this New Company is going to be a Football Club(it already is) it just hasnt got a League to play in yet thus doesn't have any playing or coaching staff because if it does not find a League then they would have nowhere to play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read information on the isutiiotn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." if it is indeed a new club then you can tpitch the club back into administration, this wher ethe confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state teh club is disolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradiciting itself never mind other sources contradict itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rangers Football Club PLC is the current Rangers which has a page on Wikipedia called Rangers F.C. The Rangers Football Club Ltd will be the Future Rangers and is a different Club to The Rangers Football Club PLC. Thats is why they both need their own pages.

For anyone who still doesnt under stand this look at Celtic, Celtic are Celtic PLC http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003487 you will see Celtic's directors etc named there. They are the directors of Celtic as a whole, Celtic PLC is Celtic which is Celtic Football Club. Celtic arent just a name, they are Celtic PLC just as Rangers as we all knew them are The Rangers Football Club PLC known as Rangers. There is no such thing as a Parent Company or Holding Company. The Company that owns Rangers is The Rangers FC Group Ltd it is them who will still live, Craig Whyte owns them, The Rangers Football Club PLC aka Rangers, Rangers FC, etc is what is dying.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

im goign to bang my head on a wall, yes celtic plc have directors because that is how PLC or LTD company work, but it is that a company it doesnt mean teh club is part of, look up what parent company means ie satander and satander uk, ok if and big if celtic ever end up in tis position you will be pushing for a new article?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See [4]. The SPL are to vote on allowing "The Rangers" into the division, using "Club12" as a placeholder where "Rangers" used to be. As "Rangers" no longer exist (as such) and "The Rangers" are applying for a place in the SPL, then this article has to remain doktorb _words^deeds 17:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case it needs moved to The Rangers F.C as that be the more appioate titleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Andrewcrawford, Celtic would also have died and a New Club page would be required for the new Club. There is no such "Rangers Football Club" Rangers Football Club is a trading name of The Rangers Football Club PLC < that IS everything that is Rangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that is the title it was at until this edit [5]. However the sources are all a little ambiguous as anyone without a pov can see.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until the situation becomes clearer. SPL fixture list for the coming season is to have a Club 12 that could be either THE Rangers FC or Dundee FC. "Rangers FC" are to be liquidated within weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuser ie (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC(IA) hold an SPL Share. But D&P claim to have sold “the club” to another company owned by Charlie Green. The SPL Share that RFC(IA) hold cannot, as part of the sale of “the club”, be transferred to that other company.

The SPL appear to have acknowledged that RFC(IA) are no longer operating as a football club by its declaration today, they are not to be included in the 2012/13 fixture list.

Under the SPL Article 6 “…if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.” RFC(IA) (no longer the owner and operator of a club) have automatically lost their entitlement to a share.

There is no debate. RFC(IA) are now no longer a football club, so have no right to a Share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.50.206 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There exists scope for Rangers FC to be re-admitted to the SPL, subject to a vote by all 12 clubs which would require an 8-4 majority to succeed. That vote has not yet taken place, therefore the SPL have little option but to issue a fixture list with one club unspecified. AlexGordovani (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers FC can mot be re-admitted to the SPL since it won't exist in 6 - 10 weeks. What might happen is that a new club, perhaps also known as 'Rangers' will be admitted as a replacement. Same name, same fans, same stadium, but not the same club! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should stay for the meantime. We have a new club located in Scotland. Surely no harm in keeping it alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.50.206 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than a prime example of the petty nature of football fans in the west of Scotland, and it's entry does more to harm the reputation of all Scottish Football fans than it does to aid in it's original intention which is to try and further kick Rangers Football Club whilst they are down and undermine the process to move forward. I'll provide several points to back this up. As already noted wikipedia does not provide seperate pages for the corporate entities that own football clubs. The "club" and the "company" are two completely distinct things. This can be exampled by the fact that Rangers originated in 1872 (officially formed in 1873) but no corporate entity existed until 1899 when The Rangers Football Club Ltd was registered. Now by the logic of those who wish to keep this page that means that Rangers were not then founded until 1899, but this is clearly not accurate, the event in 1899 was merely the creation of a limited liability company which took over ownership of the "club" in place of the previous individual partners who owned the "club". The flotation of shares, which then again further altered the structure of the corporate entity by changing it from a private limited company (the Ltd suffix) to a public limited company (gaining the plc suffix), occured I believe sometime in the 20th century (forgive me for not having the precise year). This gave rise to the company as it was known, The Rangers Football Club plc. Now whilst this company remained solvent it was the owner of the club, which means that whoever owned the company The Rangers Football Club plc also owned The Rangers Football Club. When the company became insolvent and liquidation proceedings began the ownership of the "club" transferred to a new "company" by means of an asset sale. To address the matter of SFA or league membership, neither of these are required for a football club to exist, merely to play in an organised competitive structure. To illustrate, The Rangers Football Club was not a member of the SFA when they (the SFA) formed in 1873 and were not the member of a Scottish Football League until it was formed in 1890. The club despite this still existed before this so the logic that only Association or League membership confers the right of a football clubs existence is null and void. The name of the club; the club has always been called The Rangers Football Club. Indeed on the existing wikipedia page there is no mention of the corporate name The Rangers Football Club plc, as there is no mention of the corporate name of any football club on wikipedia, so it begs the question what makes Rangers different? I'll come back to that question. Now, a company registration does not confer ownership of a name. Only a trademark permits this. This trademark would be an asset which would have been transferred to the new corporate ownership along with the asset sale. Now, no football club, anywhere in the world, uses it's corporate identity as trading name or defacto name for the club, but this page alludes that this is the case for Rangers. So what makes Rangers different? Well what makes Rangers different is that it is part of the most extreme examples of football rivalries in existence. The where-with-alls of this rivalry are not for discussion here, but it's existence has created a culture, unfortunately, where there are those who will go to any end to essentially run them down. The existence of this page is an example of this. Now wikipedia is a fantastic thing to have in the world, but it only remains a good thing to have as long as it strives to maintain itself as accurate and fair and does not allow itself to be used as a tool in such petty squabbles. As I mentioned at the start the existence of the page does more to show us up as a small minded bunch of parochial and tribal thugs. Some of the comments that have been apparent on other online media serve to show that there are a great many number of us, again unfortunately, in that category. Some of the comments on this page, whilst not being offensive, allude to such a nature. Grand statements of the club being dead etc, no cohesive argument or proof to speak of mind, because in Scottish Footbal, and particularly in the case of the old firm, logic and proof are rarely asked for. The information contained on this page belongs on the Rangers F.C. page that already exists for all the reasons named above. The company named is new, yes, but the club is not new, it is merely under new corporate ownership. As I am not registered, some facts about me. I am from Glasgow. I am employed by HMRC. I deal exclusively with Corporation Tax matters, which means I have an in depth knowledge of insolvency procedures, CVA's, corporate identity and the transfer of assets between individuals, partnerships and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. On the specific point of whether a club can continue without its controlling company, that is correct, but I would suggest that the SFA membership is criticial. Either the newco will adopt the Rangers FC membership of the SFA with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails (including the present investigations into its recent conduct), or it will apply for a new membership of the SFA. In the latter case it would be clear that this is a genuinely new club, rather than just a new corporate structure. We do not yet have enough facts to determine which will be the outcome relevant to Rangers. James Morrison (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the comments above, I believe that a move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. would be appropriate. That could be an extensive article looking back over the four months of administration and the causes of that, which would have undue weight if fully located within Rangers F.C. or even just the History of Rangers F.C. articles. There is insufficient information to determine whether the article in its present location has any merit. Only if it was established that this is a genuinely new club, as opposed to just a new corporate structure, would a separate club article be merited. James Morrison (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., as argued for convincingly by WFC, Struway2 and James Morrison. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James, I am the author of the above (long winded) response. This page has been created by someone who is trying to paint Rangers in a negative light, of that much you can be sure, and on that basis alone it should be deleted for a lack of neutrality. I agree all these events should be recorded on wikipedia but they should be recorded on the Rangers F.C page that has always existed and they should be neutral and factual. The problem we have right now is that there are too many people with an axe to grind who have not got the first idea of corporate law, business structure, asset sales (and what they actually are), history or even a decent grasp of logic. The "club" exists as it always had. I'll provide an example; if The Rangers Football Club plc remained solvent and a new owner decided they no longer wished to float shares on the stock exchange, they would need to restructure the corporate identity to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Does this mean the club ended? No. So say the owner then decided that they no longer wished to operate as a limited company and instead wanted to operate as a partnership amongst the current shareholders, well in this instance The Rangers Football Club Ltd would be dissolved. Does this mean the club ended? No it means that the organisation restructured. The problem we have here is that the plc has been forced into this position and with that comes sanctions from footballing authorities. But the club still maintains it's same existence as before, it effectively only has a new owner. The most important thing here for me is the integrity of wikipedia, it should not be used as a tool for those who have an agenda to serve. I have considered registering here as I feel as an unidentified contributor it may mean people think that I myself am serving an agenda. And I am, my agenda is accuracy, that is all. I feel I may put my employment at risk if I do register and become more involved in these debates as HMRC take a dim view of their employees doing so, rest assured my knowledge and experience in these areas is vast. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the proceed but personally believe the club died but that is my perosnal view but i have been pushing to remove or keep this article as a aritcle about the cooreprate identieAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you. The point is that if we created an article with the full details of the administration (and soon to be liquidation) process and how Rangers came to be in this position, it would be totally out of proportion to the rest of Rangers history, or we would have a stupendously long article. That's why an article called Liquidation of Rangers F.C. would be more appropriate. If, however, at a later date it becomes clear that Charles Green (or whoever) opts to set up a new club, as Jim Ballantyne did with Airdrie United, then there would need to be a new club article. James Morrison (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, wikipedia is not a forum for you, or anyone else, to express your personal view. If you do believe the club "died", then I submit to you that you do not have a firm grasp of the processes involved in these matters. James, a separate article on the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc could be acceptable but I still think that this belongs in the main page as a major event in the clubs history. It could not be titled, however, the liquidation of Rangers F.C. as for all the reasons previously stated, that title would be erroneous. I nonetheless thank you for your responses and I am glad to see you agree the current page should not exist in the manner that it does. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstand, that is my personal belief as a support of the club that it is dead, but my response on wikipeida is supporting what oyu have said but my english is ppor and i havnt put that across right at times, im not saying this is forum, im trying to show im nuetral if i wasn ti would be pushing my POV and saying the club is dead on teh article but i am not because sources sqy otherwise and i have been fighting that on the page, look at the talk pages of rangers fc and my talk pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Rangers were perceived to have survived the liquidation process by whatever means, then the "Liquidation of Rangers F.C." article would most likely to be moved to "Rangers F.C. survival from liquidation", as per the precedent of Middlesbrough F.C. survival from liquidation in 1986. James Morrison (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point made by the anonymous contributor above is actually wrong as this is not a company choosing to restructure - a company is going bankrupt and its assets have been bought over by a different company. Yes, the new company want to run a club of the same name, for the same fans, from the same stadium, but it is a different entity -ie a different club. Indeed, think of what is going to happen when the SPL decide which club should be 'club 12' - Rangers FC gets a vote on whether Green's new Rangers should get in. Rangers FC can only get a vote if it is still a member club of the SPL and it is voting on its replacement club - therefore, not the same club! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no rangers fc plc holds the spl license hence why it has to vote, if it was liqdauted already it wouldnt have a vote. the problem lies with peopel think the plc and the club are all in oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPL rules state that only a club can hold a licence. If Rangers FC was no long a club, it would have its licence revoked. It therefore remains a club - it just doesn't have a stadium, team etc as these were sold off to a different company. This company - The Rangers Football Club Ltd - is now applying to get into the SPL. It is a club without a league! Therefore there are two separate clubs: Rangers FC, which is a club in the SPL but off to be replaced because it is being liquidated, and Green's club that he hopes the SPL will let in. And one club will get to vote on the fate of the other. Two separate clubs. When Rangers FC is finally liquidated, that particular club dies. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry fishiehelper but you clearly have no understanding of corporate structure, insolvency or corporate identity. The whole point I was making is that whether it is a forced event or a voluntary one, restructure of a corporate vehicle does not change or end the subsidiaries that the company owned. The club would only have ended if there was no-one to take up the mantle and purchase the assets to continue it. In that event the assets would have been sold off individually to offer recompense to the creditors. What has happened is that the plc, by virtue of the limited liability it infers has in fact saved the club and allowed it to be transferred to a new corporation, partnership or individual. This is what Ltd and plc's exist for. I'll provide another example, John Smith opens a shop and calls it Smiths Shop, after a few months he registers as Smiths Shop Ltd. A few months later, the company is insolvent and liquidation is about to proceed, his next door neighbour John Jones steps in and buys all the assets of the shop under his existing corporate name Jones Holdings Ltd and then, rightfully, continues to trade the shop as Smiths Shop. Now being held under the corporate structure Jones Holdings Ltd doesn't change the right to the trading name nor does it change the fact that the shop existed there before and still does in it's present state. If Mr Jones hadn't intervened then the assets of Smiths Shop Ltd would have individually been auctioned off to pay back creditors and the business doors would have closed. The doors at Rangers remain very much open for business and the name above the door is still, and always has been, The Rangers Football Club. What we have here is an argument created by the detractors of Rangers which contain petty and inaccurate semantics. The example I have provided above is from one of my old training manuals on insolvency practices. This is how I make my living remember. Andrew, I apologise if I misunderstood your statement. I meant no offence. Regards.86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry fishiehelper but you are trying to pass off SFA statutes as corporate or business law and they are neither. I am not disputing that at the moment, due to SFA and SPL rules that Rangers does not have current Association or League membership, that is irrefutable fact, the point that I am making is that this is not a new "club", it is a new owner for the club. The point that Rangers maintain a vote on the SPL at the current time is an irrelevant coincidence of timing. The SPL rules do not allow for the vote to be removed until liquidation has begun and it will not formally commence until after this vote takes place. The share, as it is being called, in the SPL is owned by the plc and is, to my understanding, non transferable which is why it couldn't be part of the asset sale. But share or membership in an organisation does not infer existence. The club has transferred in it's whole form to a new corporate owner. It's identity and existence is not held by the SFA or SPL. Again these are inaccurate semantics. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid are are refusing to see the reality of this situation. Rangers FC is a legal entity. If that whole legal entity had been bought over by the Charles Green consortium, the club would continue to exist as the legal entity would continue to exist. However, that did not happen. Charles Green has bought the assets of the legal entity, Rangers FC, but not the legal entity itself as he did not want to take responsibility for the debts. The legal entity, Rangers FC, therefore still remains, though nothing more than a debt-ridden shell. When the legal entity, Rangers FC, is finally liquidated, the club, formed in 1872 will be at an end. Of course, Rangers fans will have a new club to follow, but it will be a different legal entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - arguably could be renamed Rangers F.C. (2012) or similar but clearly notable. The situation is no different from F.C. Halifax Town being formed after the liquidation of the owners of Halifax Town A.F.C.. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely different from Halifax Town A.F.C. - in that example the club was formally wound up. There was no asset transfer and when the new club was formed it was then required to use a new name and new branding. As I stated before, Rangers have been transferred in their whole form to a new corporate owner. It's the same as the first time a company was formed for them essentially in 1899. Regards. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - the slightly different name and branding was a requirement of the FA. If the SFA do not require this for the new Rangers club that doesn't affect the situation. The new Halifax Town play at the same stadium as the old, took over assets from the old etc. This company have taken over assets from the old fine; and if fans consider this to be a continuation of the old fine; but on Wikipedia we take a more objective view. TerriersFan (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they took over the assets they would have the rights to any trademark on names and branding and would be entitled to continue using them, despite what the FA wanted or did not want. Halifax were liquidated before assets were sold (there was no asset transfer), Rangers have transferred assets before liquidation. Therein lies the difference, so it is you, my friend, who is wrong in your assertion. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

86.129.155.20 Doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Rangers have not been transferred to a new "corporate owner" the assets have. There is no such thing as a corporate structure and a club that stands alone. Rangers were formed as The Rangers Football Club(Their Official name), they became a Limited company in 1899 and changed their Official name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd(Look on the gates of Ibrox to see the full name) and in 1995 they became a PLC thus their Official name is now The Rangers Football Club Plc, look on the last document Rangers released. "Rangers Football Club" is just an informal trading name of The Rangers Football Club Plc, just as "Celtic Football Club" is the informal trading name of Celtic Plc.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superbhoy1888, seriously? There is no better illustration of my point than your username. That combined with your obvious lack of understanding in these matters, evidenced by your response, where you repeat what I say but just transfer hyperbole to the negative, will serve as reason enough to disregard you from herein. Terriersfan, the existence of this page is the very definition of lack of objectivity. Again fishiehelper, and I sincerely mean no offence, you lack the knowledge and expertise in business and corporate affairs, structuring, law (your use of the legal entity phrase shows this up) etc and I don't have the time to offer lessons via this media and I don't think a continued back and forth from us is going to help on the matter. I am very much aware of the reality of the situation and that is what I wish to be portrayed on wikipedia, the reality. I refer to all previous points, none of which anybody has as yet been able to refute. I have yet to meet someone from within the "business" or "legal" worlds who does not accept the validity of the points I have raised here. I suspect this is for good reason and is also for good reason that the layperson is interpreting the facts as the choose to suit their agenda. I will not be contributing further on this debate as I have said all that needs to be said, and as I know the facts that I have raised cannot be quashed. I have enjoyed taking part however, I hope that the true nature of these events will be accurately and neutrally reflected on wikipedia soon as I do believe it is an invaluable resource in our modern world and as previously stated should not be a public tool for those with an axe to grind. Regards and take care all. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are hilarious mate, if you want your head taken out the sand I have a shovel here you can use. Can you please provide the proof that Rangers Football Club exist please, it should only take 10 seconds. I can do it if you can't!--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5 minutes is long enough, clearly you cannot prove the existance of "Rangers Football Club" and why cant you? because Rangers Football Club is >>>>http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC004276 and it is being Liquidated. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. If you do not accept that THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. is Rangers, then they have lovely nice big in depth sets of accounts for years and years you can look back on, search the full shebang and point out where in those accounts, the "club" named Rangers is listed as an asset owned by this "corporate structure" I assure you you'd be wasting your time. This is what I call Game, Set and the Match.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you show the company ltd part for Airdrieonians F.C. as you said all clubs are companies are are limited so can you show this i cant find oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Rangers F.C. or a new article about the liquidation. Although the new entity has a slightly different name and different legal constitution, for the moment there's no evidence that it's different to the old Rangers FC in practical terms - if it keeps the same stadium, fans, its records are viewed as a continuation of Rangers' old records, etc. If in time the new club proves to be clearly distinct from the old one, it may merit a new article, but at the moment there's no sign of that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate the facts from the earlier comments about the club being distinct from the company and this is merely transfer of ownership, please see the following http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity. This page is innacurate and in poor taste. Please amend accordingly or factually represent these events in the existing page. 212.137.36.231 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As TUPE has already been established to apply"...when, and by whom was this established? "Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts..." When was this issue decided in a court? If so, which one? "this is merely transfer of ownership..." Yes, without doubt there has been a transfer of the ownership of the assets of Rangers FC. The debts have been left with Rangers FC, awaiting final liquidation of the club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References 10, 11, and 12 on the current page you seem to hold so dear all reference that the players and employees are eligible to transfer under TUPE. TUPE can only proceed under the regulations as they have been outlined by 212.137.36.231. Satisfaction of the courts may be a bit misleading, but I think the point that is trying to be made is that these rights would hold up in court therefore if TUPE applies it means the economic identity, in this case Rangers and all it's history, has been preserved in the transfer of corporations. This is quite clearly a good citation of European case law and as citations lend more weight on wikipedia than personal opinion it should not be ignored or merely dismissed because it doesn't suit your argument. If you think it's wrong I suggest you find a citation that holds as much weight, based on precedent and facts instead of rhetoric and opinion and present it to be considered. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you best posting this on the rangers fc talk page and add new section for it as it more better suited for that apge than thisAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewcrawford http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003814 THE AIRDRIEONIANS FOOTBALL AND ATHLETIC COMPANY LIMITED Airdrieonians was called, now liquidated.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks that means you could have a source that verifies that a company is a club, in spirit of fairness i am goign to find the details on all 42 clubs in teh spl and sfl and the clubs who have been liqdauted so as to help back up your arguement :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first let me honest with you: I haven't read through all of this discussion. But I have read through two discussions about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and I was thinking "why not keep the article about Rangers F.C. as it is, and create new articles about newco and oldco" as natural spinoff articles, but this article should be about the newco not a new club. Rangers F.C. is still Rangers F.C. even though the company that owned the club is bankrupt and hence moving it to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. might be a little premature, as the club isn't really liquidized yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers F.C is The Rangers Football Club PLC though, there is no "asset" named Rangers or Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club that belonged to The Rangers Football Club PLC. They are the Club, what they owned was assets like players, cars, buses, vans, property, stadia, gym equipment, copyrights and trademarks. All of that has now been sold to a New Club currently called Sevco 5088 Limited, who will obviously change their name to something with Rangers in it for example FC Rangers and they'll probably become a PLC so FC Rangers PLC, they already own the copyrights to names like Rangers FC and Rangers Football Club as those names will be copyrighted assets that Green's consortium bought for Sevco 5088(The Rangers Football Club Ltd). I don't know why people cannot understand that clubs are companies and companies are clubs. The clubs are not assets of the companies unless they have a holding company such as Rangers have the Rangers FC Group Ltd which is owned by Whyte, we don't yet know the name of the consortium who own the new club but it will most likely be called something like Rangers Investment Group Ltd and a few people like Green, Morgan and Celona I think the guys name is will own shares in that.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok lets take a new angle lets say a new club called club t starts and is granted a license and plays in a league ok... do you follow that, if so then the fa says hey club e commited a offence and breached our rules we are punishing you the club t for there action even though you have not anything to do wuith them apart from you name is like them... would that be fair?

I agree it isn't fair to punish newco Rangers for what the old club did. I suspect that the SPL are suggesting this possibililty to give chairmen a way to vote to let newco Rangers start in the top league. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what i mean is under spl and sfa guidelines a club cant be punished for osmething they have not done, if it a new club then they can nto be punished but the spl and sfa are goign to apply the charges to this apparent nuew club so they see it as the same club etc, until this sitution is clear we really dnt know i suspect july 4th might be a starting point and certainly by end of augustAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if it truly a new club they wont face sanctions for rangers footballl club plc as you put it because they hsve nothing to do with them but they will face sanctions so the sfa and spl see them as the same club so explain that ine tio me then i might back you on the club is the company if you give a good reason why a club who appentely in your eyes is new should be punish for some other clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Club won't face the sanctions of the old club, I dont know why you think they will. If titles are stripped they will be stripped from Rangers, the New Club have no titles to strip, any fines etc that belonged to Rangers are now defunct as is any money owed to them or owed by them.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spl have said they will look to punish the newco rangers with sanctions for breachign dual contracts, although it not confirmed what excately they have breeched and what sanctions so if it a new club they wouldnt face sanctions and the case agains tthe old rangers owuld be dropped apart from title strippign which i agree should be done, but sanctiosn agains thte club for breechign wouldnt need to be persude if it new club, this is why there is conflicitng information the authorisate say one thing and other say another no one knows once the new season begins i think we will all be a lot clearer in what going onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So they say, but if you want to know why they are waiting until after the New Club's vote on the 4th of July. It is because if they kick Rangers out the SPL, Rangers would no longer have an SPL membership to transfer to Sevco, thus Sevco wouldnt even get the chance to go to the SPL and could only apply for the SFL. Waiting until after that vote, at least gives the New Club the chance to get into the SPL. If Sevco did get into the SPL, then the SPL would then come out and say "Rangers FC have been stripped of 4 League titles and 2 League Cups, but since Rangers are now no longer members we are powerless to take any further action"(fines, Demotion, transfer embargo, etc) Sevco would remain in the SPL in this case - and that is what the SPL want, Sevco"New Rangers" in the SPL. Why else do you think they have posponed and postponed and postponed, everyone has known Rangers have used EBT's for 3 years or so now, yet the SPL waited until the last hour to investigate wether they broke the rules, they are now waiting and waiting to see if Rangers and Sevco can work their way round there being a New Rangers in the SPL before they do anything.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

im well aware and i agree completely but if they sanction the newco if they get into the spl then the spl are effectily saying the newco isnt a new club and tha tis my pointAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect as per WFC's initial suggestion. Giant Snowman 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. plc with a complete rewrite detailing simply why/by whom/outcome of the administration process and the subsequent fallout surrounding the liquidation of the plc. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. plc there is still conflicting statements emerging differing from the page creators. Such as BDO's statement that the club will continue just that the old company is being liquidated - "It's important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox - only the end of the company that ran the club," said Cohen. --BadSynergy (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - there is definitely a need to have a separate article for the 'new' Rangers if such a team is admitted into the SPL or SFL. This article seems a good start to that and as things become clearer it can be changed or renamed as required. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to widespread acceptance that Charles Green's Rangers is a new club (except from editors on Wikipedia!) It may be a successor club, but the old Rangers is about to die and a new Rangers is emerging in its place. For the record, even Walter Smith admitted that the other day "We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune."^[1] This view is supported in the media. The Mirror had a heading "Rangers finished: Liquidation next – and 'new club' likely to be voted out of SPL"^[2] Also, The Mail had "Former Rangers boss Smith casts doubt on rival Green after abandoning bid to buy new club^[3]

The Rangers FC article is about the old Rangers, and this article about the proposed new one, assuming a league can be found for the new club for next season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further source (STV) describing the new Rangers as a new club: "Rangers’ stadium and training ground are now owned by the company but permission is required from both the SPL and Scottish FA for the new club to participate in football in Scotland."^[4]

fishiehelper ive never denied there sources that state it as as new club, but ny source that says it the same club you have refut because it doesnt suit what you want, wikipeida isnt about taking sides we report wha tthe sources say, the problem here is the sources say both so it a very hard siution to deal withAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keepfor now - there may eventually be parallels with the Fiorentina liquidation, but as this is a current event, subject to continual edition, there is a requirement at this time for separate pages on the oldco and newco, in order to deal with the July 4th SPL admission vote, and/or any subsequent SFL vote. If there were no issues concerning the status of Rangers 1872, the SPL vote would be unnecessary. Culloty82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new club are actually called Sevco Scotland http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159 what people previously thought was the club Sevco 5088 is actually just the company who own the club much like Craig Whytes Rangers FC Group Ltd own Rangers Football Club PLC.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No the new company is called Sevco. That's where your argument falls down the club is very much called Rangers F.C. for now. There certainly are a fair bunch of pov pushers on both sides. It's highly unlikely the main page will ever get unprotected because no one can agree. Start mediation from outside editors only way this is going somewhere. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am in process of doing that, i think to have objective conclusion and consensus all involved have to take a seat back and only make there arguements and let someone neutral make a decisionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderer, the New Club are called Sevco Scotland, their address is Ibrox Stadium. Their informal or trade name is The Rangers Football Club or RFC or Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club as they now own the copyrights of those names(meaning only them and people they allow permission to can use those names or else they could sue them) and can name themself it if they wish. Watch and I bet Sevco Scotland will re-name their official name something more "old Rangers" like such as Glasgow Rangers FC or Rangers FC Sports Club or something Rangersish like that. The new company is the new club, I dont know how you dont understand that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that is wrong that is the name of the company. And yes they will rename from Sevco as a Sevco title is a holding name that are preregistered in advance for multiple companies to then use they have to register a new name with companies house in due course which they already have made clear. Your letting your Celtic head cloud your judgement your arguments are constantly changing and as has been shown above by andrew there are counter statements to your sources. As you will have seen Rangers will be set up with two board of directors one for the company and one for the club that was fully laid out as part of the liquidation process so in the form of the new business no the company and club will not be the same. This has been done so that one isn't liable for the other. So no Sevco and the club will not be the same.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the following quotes will be of interest then: from Steven Whittaker "We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us." From Steven Naismith "My loyalty is with Rangers, not with Sevco [Green's company name], who I don't know anything about."[6]

No they don't because it does not in anyway back your claim that Sevco and any new club are the same. They have been set up so they aren't. That would back up a claim that the old club and company were the same but again the source states they haven't been told anything so they don't actually know that either. They know as much fact as we do as they have not been told anything, and what do we know nothing for certain nothing. You could then quote Ally Mcoist who says “The formation of a new company is not the issue. The players would be playing for the same club – Rangers – in front of the same fans."[7] In summary for every source that says club and company are the same others don't. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect as per WFC's initial suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.77.53 (talk)

Keep until situation more clear - The situation is evolving daily, and it is premature to discuss major changes like AfD or renames. Wait a month or two, then see what has settled out. If the new club keeps the Rangers name, and plays in the same stadium, then this article can be deleted (or converted into a "liquidation" subarticle). If the club changes names, it should get a new article, independent of the old Rangers article. But having an AfD now, while the news updates are being issued daily, is not a productive use of editor's time. --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Having two articles is not helpful at a time when nobody actually know the situation. The new article is full of pov and very little hard fact, this is because no one knows the actual facts because they have not all been disclosed and sources disagree for every source that states Rangers will be a new club there is equal sources for now that states the opposite. So what is helpful here, the answer is nothing general public should not be exposed to an article that is actually pretty poor and not neutral in anyway.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chanigng my vote Redirect to Rangers F.C. or Rename to Rangers (2012) or Move to Liquidation or Rangers F.C. changign ym vote because keepign the article does nto seem right nowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If it is not a new club then why are several players claiming to be free agents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.201.10 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are exercising their rights under employment law. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. James Morrison (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because tupe says they do not need to transfer there employment form one company to another, but it could be a new club regardless that is irreverent if it is a new club or the same club the tupe regards to the company's which at the moment is disputed whether it is the club or notAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAME, SET AND MATCH Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-

Established

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824

http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg

Rangers Football Club PLC aka the Club

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830

http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg

Full Member

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf

http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg

Legal Entity

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29

http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg

Company and Club

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf

http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg

Failing that, I point you to Richard Gough, Andy Goram, Alex Rae, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Walter Smith who have all called them "the new club". Failing that I quote none other than owner and chairman of Sevco Scotland talking about Dave King "For someone who's a Rangers fan, what he's suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all history and tradition that we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean why would a true fan suggest that?".. Green himself even suggesting that the newco route retains no history and tradition and that would only be because its a brand spanking new club. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly spent some time doing your research, Superbhoy1888. Your zeal in attempting to clarify the quagmire that is Rangers' affairs is commendable. It's just a pity that Wikipedia is not the place for it. The situation will become clear once reliable sources make it clear. In the meantime I'm sure there are plenty of fan forums where your synthesis, analysis and interpretation would be welcomed and much discussed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the Stock Exchange, Rangers, SFA and UEFA reliable sources? SFA state a member is a club, also state that if a member(club) goes into liquidation etc, Rangers state the Club became a company in 1899, Rangers themselves state that The Rangers Football Club PLC is "Rangers FC", UEFA states Clubs have to be a Legal Entity(company) to get a license, reason for that is non professional clubs cannot recieve or pay money as it'd be illegal and obviously UEFA need to pay clubs money to travel and play in European Football, a Legal Entity is a Company, Rangers refer to Rangers being founded in 1872 and incorporated(becoming a legal entity) in 1899. The Stock exchange say Rangers Football Club PLC were founded in 1873(they obviously havent updated since Rangers decided they were founded in 1872 a couple of years back). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) ("the company" and "the club") - says it all. Thanks superbhoy 1888. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says nothing to me; this was a pre-newco statement that related to the situation before liquidation was inevitable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes clear that "the company" and "the club" are the same entity - pre or post liquidation is irrelevant. Therefore, the end of this company is also the end of this particular club. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2012#District 8. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 14:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murray (politician)

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

Non-notable failed candidate, running again, still not notable in his own right. Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the election in which he's running, as per WP:POLITICIAN. This gentleman still doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN; I looked at the references and found that they were very localized (the Washington Post link is a blog post from a blog devoted to his state's politics and has little information). Ubelowme (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a neutral article about the current race he's a candidate in, that describes all the candidates. At this time, he fails WP:POLITICIAN in terms of a biographical article devoted to him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2012#District 8, the race in question. Dru of Id (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above comments and as per previous AfD on this topic. He shouldn't have an article about him until he is notable outside of routine election coverage. The article that was resurrected in November 2011 is sustantially the same as the one that was redirected in February 2011, indicating not much has changed. Sionk (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we been here before? Redirect. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 18 June 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Arjona

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

unintelligble attack on living person Novo advogado (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a big fan of Ricardo Arjona. I've went to all of his concerts and bought all of his albums. I wrote that section; it's incredibly sourced and verifiable. No reason to delete. The nominator have been involved in an edit warring with me over the content. I'm thinking about reporting him to ANI for his actions. —Hahc 21 15:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend the user to read WP:BEFORE and understand the guidelines before deleting content from articles and going into AfD for unexplainable reasons. —Hahc 21 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article is about a notable musician. Deletion of the entire article is not a good way to deal with an edit dispute over part of the article. Any problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. On the face of it, I am unable to understand why this article was nominated. The individual plainly meets two or three criteria of WP:MUSIC, including having won a Grammy, and there are more than 100 reliable sources. Since I am unfamiliar with this artist it is barely possible that this is some kind of a hoax, but other than that there is no valid reason to delete this article that I can see. Ubelowme (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user nominated the article at AfD because he considered the Controversy and criticism section to be personal attacks to Arjona. He started an EW against me, and got warned 4 times on about 20 minutes. —Hahc 21 15:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep: Nominator needs to read the Deletion policy. Erick (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 June 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 Goal! (film). (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 14:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Muñez

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

This is an article about a fictional person, but for some reason is written as though he is a real-life professional footballer. The article is subjected to constant vandalism; statistics are made up, transfers are added and removed. There are no references, because the character is not notable by itself independent of the films. Big Dom 15:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redirect it to Goal! (film), no need to delete. Possible search term.--Jenny Longlegs (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the goal! film series Seasider91 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as stated above, the name a likely search term, but not independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Sir Sputnik. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete this stupid freaking article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.206.24 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In due time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Goal! (film) where this chacacter merits a mention... and it might even be suitable for us to have a sentence or two at Kuno Becker,[8] but we do not have enough real world notability for this ficational character for him to merit a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 18 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Header Creator

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

Non-notable software, looks like written by the software creator (judging by the username) - self promotation and contains no references. 12dstring (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced; no 3rd party refs to establish notability; created by an SPA as potentially promotional. Dialectric (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough to handle an article on its own. —Hahc 21 15:54, 23 June 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. A tough one: as a BLP and as a supposed entertainment-related discussion, the policies do need to be clearly gone through as opposed to !vote. Looking at (the very poor) references, I have to conclude that the person does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT based on what has been provided, and even what I can find in journalism databases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GloZell Green

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

A "YouTube personality". Her main claim to fame is her Cinnamon challenge where she attempts to eat cinnamon and not much else (This could be considered a WP:ONEEVENT case). It is one of thousands of such videos and sources just have a sentence about her. Refs in the article come from the Univ. of Florida student newspaper (an alum), an interview with the Univ. of Kansas student newspaper and the Dartmouth newspaper. Unable to find any reliable and independent references that go into detail about her. Bgwhite (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's notable beyond her cinnamon challenge video (she has several popular videos and one appeared on The Jimmy Kimmel Show) and I've provided multiple reliable sources, which you state all of which are university newspapers, to support her notability. She's already notable enough to list her on List of YouTube personalities, so why not give her a full and properly written article?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 22:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability guidelines through coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Till 11:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is a puff piece based on mentions that make her "has appeared in things and has been mentioned on other things." So Elijah Wood mentions her blog on a TV show--that's great. That she's listed in a Wikipedia list is likewise not a reason to presume her of encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have searched for sources, but nothing I can find amounts to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so WP's notability guidelines are not met. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything is correct and she is a very famous youtube star. --Zannabanna (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything being correct is only half the battle. You also have to show that's she's "notable", not just "famous". There have been lots of "You Tube personalities" and "Myspace bands" with large fan bases who have had articles deleted here because they have little or no coverage outside those communities. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only thing I found on google news aside from repeats of a blurb about her and Jay Leno was this. However, there are several sources listed in the references that appear to be "significant coverage". While yes they are college newspapers, they are college newspapers from different parts of the country. This shows that she has been "taken note of". However, I won't bold "keep" since I don't think there is a consensus for this view. If she's not technically notable now, I think it's likely she will be later. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet criteria as WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT. The sources given (and those readily available in a web search) are either interviews (WP:PRIMARY), only mention the subject in passing, or are non-critical capsule reviews. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a "non-critical Capsule review" automatically not count toward "notability"? I'm also not too crazy about this whole idea of interviews not counting either. In my view it would depend on who's doing the interviewing and whether or not its publication is subject to editorial peer review. What we should be trying to determine in this discussion, and in any AFD discussion where notability is at issue, is whether or not the subject has been "taken note of", not that every WP:N "I" has been dotted and every "T" crossed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 8 June 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, Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ron Ritzman: Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Reliable_sources specifically excludes capsule reviews as "trivial coverage", and not a significant source for determining notability. WP:PRIMARY excludes interviews in some contexts - when the interview is being used as a source that does not require any original research, it might be usable. In this case, we would be using the existence of the interview to determine notability - which would be original research on our part. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about capsule reviews but I have to disagree with you about using an interview as a basis for making a notability argument. WP:NOR says The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This does not apply to making a meta decision on whether or not an article should exist. If someone was interviewed by Barbara Walters or the interview appeared in Time Magazine, that would make a very strong case for notability. Not so much if the subject were interviewed by some random blogger. It's just like determining whether or not a news story on the a subject counts toward notability. Was the subject interviewed by a notable reporter and was the interview published by a reputable news organization with editorial oversight? I haven't looked at the interview in question here, I'm just making a general point. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see and agree with your point on OR. It does then require us to examine the context of the interview though. Is every person interviewed by Barbara Walters notable by only that criteria? How about every person interviewed by Oprah? Or Martha Quinn? At some point, we would need to draw the line based on editorial review and/or impact of the interview. In the case of this article, the interviews are all for University level student newspapers. I believe we can agree that while not random blogs, they are also not likely to confer notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:40, 11 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It appears that this person and article have no value on Wikipedia unless we include every unknown person who has ever been mentioned on a talk show.keystoneridin! (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She has received significant coverage in reliable sources. To say that 'this person and article have no value on Wikipedia' is entirely subjective and not what we are talking about. Till 03:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I don't really have anything to add. The article is well referenced, it may not be big, but that is not a cause for deletion. Statυs (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Youtube personality who doesn't meet the notability standards. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:29, 23 June 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. Only keep !votes are from socks. If somebody wishes this userified, ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jenkins

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

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

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

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

College football player that has not played professionally. Subject does not meet the general or topical notability guidelines for collegiate athletes. Media coverage merely includes a repeating of statistics and mentions in game summaries. See WP:ROUTINE. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the criteria and understanding it's inherent bias towards NCAA Division I players, I would argue that a Division II quarterback that holds six top 10 statistical categories for quarterbacks warrants an article. Mr. Jenkins has amazing statistics considering his commitment to a team that is in a rebuilding phase. Jenkins was the RMAC Co-Freshman of the Year award in 2009, RMAC 2nd Team Quarterback in 2010, and has won the RMAC/Rawling's Player of the week twicke. I would also put forth that being considered one of the top most impressive quarterback in Division II by Eric Galko of Optimum Scouting is noteworthy. Optimum Scouting focus is on Division II players so their placing Mr. Jenkins in the top two in Division II is significant. I would encourage Wikipedia to expand it's criteria to included players who are making a major impact in the other NCAA Divisions. I respectfully request that you reconsider your deletion recommendation and watch over the next six months as Mr. Jenkins moves from notable to NFL draft prospect.--Adh80112 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Adh80112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436 Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article is being considered for deletion. You should reconsider. I have seen Mr. Jenkins play both in high school and college and we will be seeing him play on Sunday's in the NFL soon. His Division II statistics are notable. His awards are impressive. If you "Google" him there is a lot of news releases and information on him that I beleive makes him "Notable". I see he is not NCAA Division I but I don't think that should keep him out of Wikipedia. I see the part about Optimum Scouting and agree if they think he is one of the most impressive quarterbacks in Division II then that is notable. Please reconsider your deletion and keep this article on Wikipedia. I know it will be here soon either way but nice to see it now versus in eight months when he is drafted. --GDG93436 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — GDG93436 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436 Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I collaborated with adh80112 on this article for the last couple of weeks. He had better editing skills so let him do the posting. I agree that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Mr. Jenkins is notable, holds major NCAA Division II records and has won numerous awards and accolades. I hope that Wikipedia sees their way to expand their information bias towards players that played in other NCAA Divisions. I am hopeful that this important and notable article is published so it can open the door to freedom of information when it comes to players from other NCAA divisions. I feel it is important for Wikipedia to be inclusive in your articles versus limiting it based on narrow criteria like which division an athletic happens to make their notable and worthy mark in their sport. If the article is deleted I know it won’t be long before Mr. Jenkins notoriety will force open the information blockade that the current Wikipedia criterion poses for this article.--Samjackson93436 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Samjackson93436 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I was searching quarterbacks today and was glad to see an article on Tim Jenkins. I was sad to see you are considering deleting the article. I have to agree with the others that this kid is notable and one of a kind. I have seen him play and he has what it takes to make it in the NFL. I read the criteria and can see that an article on him does not strictly meet the criteria. However, I agree with "Samjackson93436" in part where he talks about Tim will soon be here as I believe he will soon break out on the national stage. I saw a twitter from George Whitfield that he worked with Tim this summer and Jenkins can make all the throws. My opinion is that Mr. Whitfield would know if someone is notable and a standout after training Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Ben Roethlisberger and others. I would recommend that Wikipedia keep the article as it won't be long before Jenkins will be throwing the ball around on Sundays! --Collegedanwright (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Collegedanwright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436 Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator. What did you find when you is a search for coverage about Jenkins? I'm behind a firewall and can't do a Google search myself right now, but do the results of the search indicate that he has not "been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage"?

That said, regarding the comments made by the other accounts that Jenkins will be notable in the future: we can wait until after he achieves notability to create the article; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The results of my search were pretty much as I stated in the nomination, in addition to a handful of YouTube videos. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that when you Google Mr. Jenkins you get a "handful of YouTube videos". You actually get the videos but also articles by the Denver Post, links to the NCAA statistics on him, RMAC links, and about ten pages of hits. Google says there are 61,000 results. I understand that he is close on meeting the college criteria but you should at least be accurate and fair in your objection to the article. Thank you. --Adh80112 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436 Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NCAA statistics and RMAC links equate to routine media coverage repeating statistics and mentions in game summaries. The Denver Post articles fall within this description as well. A fair and accurate description, as stated in the nomination. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Denver Post articles might be non-routine coverage, but the NCAA stats are routine. Also, Tim Jenkins is a common enough name that I wouldn't trust that all the Google hits pertain to Jenkins. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Denver Post actually resides within the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference. There are 16 articles about Jenkins on the DP, all providing routine game summaries and a couple of high school recruiting notices. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Fred, I appreciate your feedback. I am new to Wikipedia and might not be an expert but I did do a lot of research with my friend on Tim and feel strongly that this is a solid article. I actually restricted the Google search to "Tim Jenkins Fort Lewis Quarterback" and went through the pages and they were all on him. My buddy and I went through a lot sources to do a good job of writing the article. I just want this to be a fair review of the article using data versus just following the narrow focus of Wikipedia college athlete guidelines. Jenkins is notable already and based on other articles I have read on Wikipedia this article belongs here for people that are researching information on him. Thank you for looking at this with an objective perspective. Respectfully. --Adh80112 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436 Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A google search for "tim jenkins" "fort lewis" quarterback comes back with 3,240 hits. None supported notability in accordance with WP:NCOLLATH. See WP:GHITS. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 19:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cindamuse, thank you for the input. If you do the search as I suggested "Tim Jenkins Fort Lewis Quarterback" and go through the pages you will see the results and information that supports notability. I found that it is not till about page 24 that you start to see results that have nothing to do with the Tim Jenkins I did the article on. The more specific search I did really helps to pull together the information that is out there on this notable person. I would appreciate your help on how to make the article more acceptable and meet the criteria. I am not an expert on Wikipedia and don't have the expertise so anything constructive would be appreciated. Respectfully, --Adh80112 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436 Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails the notability guideline for American football and the notability guideline for college athletes. Though there are a reasonable amount of sources in the article, the large majority of them are simple repeatings of statistics, or only mention the subject in passing, which fail both the latter guideline and the "significant coverage"/"presumed" portions of the general notability guideline. A cursory search for sources found nothing useful to add to the article. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I now feel comfortable to say that there are no reliable sources providing significant, non-routine coverage. (At least not yet: if his arm is as good as the records suggest, he'll likely play professional football after he graduates. When (if) that happens, then he'll achieve notability—but until that happens, he's not notable.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable second-tier college athlete. Subject fails to satisfy the specific notability guidelines for high school athletes per WP:NSPORTS, college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH, or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON, or the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Currently cited sources in the article seem to fall between truly trivial mentions and typical routine coverage in recruiting and post-game articles, as well as statistics cited in various media guides and record books. Arguments advanced above fail to comprehend the nature of meaningful coverage, confusing the required quality of media coverage with the quantity of hits in Google searches. In short, there simply aren't any independent, reliable sources whose in-depth coverage supports the notability of the subject under any of the applicable guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Great Person, Great Kid, been around this kid for the last couple years, keep the article or don't soon enough he will be notable to your guidelines, with that being said I would be careful about referring to division 2 athletes as second tier college athletes as dirtlawyer1 did after all its easy to hide behind a username ;) all our athletes at Fort Lewis work hard and to me no one is second tier in life or the Wikipedia world. Hunterthelawyer (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Hunterthelawyer struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet of Samjackson93436[reply]
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Potential future notability is not a measure of present notability, and it's not Wikipedia's job to guess about the future. If he turns out to eventually be notable, then an article can be written at that time. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally Division II athletes are not considered notable. At this point, I see no reason to make an exception for this particular player. I'd be open to a Userfy if someone wants to take custody of it. As a side comment, if a Div-II player were to be notable, a quarterback of exceptional talent would be a candidate--but the player would still need to achieve notability standards through some measure such as WP:GNG. I'm afraid I don't see that here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:00, 18 June 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-binding recommendation to move and rework the material in Resilience engineering. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resilient control systems

AfDs for this article:

After surviving one deletion discussion six months ago, this article continues to have multiple serious issues, including tone, notability, acceptable sourcing, conflict of interest in its primary author, and above all, clarity on the subject treated. What's more, there no longer seems to be any contributors willing to even try to rehabilitate it. Issues are well-documented on talk page. Snow (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither tone nor CoI are causes for deletion: tone is resolved by editing, and CoI by careful attention to neutrality. Actually neither tone nor NPOV appear especially problematic in the article as it is today, but please feel free to edit it to read better. Clarity isn't a cause for deletion either; and again, the article is pretty clear. On sourcing, I haven't attempted to check the dozens of sources supplied, but with this thoroughly referenced an article, I don't think there's a SNOWball's chance of deletion on grounds on notability. That leaves the question of self-plagiarism: not an ideal situation; but as nom notes, the article has already been heavily edited since it was drafted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With respect, I disagree on one point in particular; notability cannot be established solely by a glut of sources. The content also has to be presented in such a way as validates the usefulness of the article. At present the article is so steeped in the professional idiolect of the author that it fails to adequately establish its argument and thus its notability. The vagueries of the language employed are covering for the fact that little is actually defined in the article. The entire thing basically boils down to saying that modern technological infrastructure is complex and interconnected and presents challenges in maintaining stability their stability under stress. The problem is that this is a statement of perspective, and outlook presented through the narrow context of particular theories on the resilience of such systems, but it doesn't actually define any subject in the manner that Wikipedia article should. The article is not titled "approaches to resilient control systems" because that would highlight instantly why the article isn't working, but honestly that's the most honest title for the article as it's content is presented now. The page reads exactly like the conference presentation from which it was adapted and lectures/presentations are just not the purpose of Wikipedia. This, in my opinion, breaks the article as it fails to constrain itself to, or even adequately define, its own subject matter. Snow (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't depend on the article's content, but on the article's subject ("Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" - WP:N). But even if it's notable, deletion might be justified if it was beyond repair. I agree it needs serious work, but there might be notability behind it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good distinction to make and a point which gives me an opportunity to clarify my position here further; I think the subject of a Control system meets the notability standard -- that's why we have that article. What I feel does not meet the notability standard is the concept that some control systems are going to be more resilient than others or one man's speculative perspective on how such systems can best be achieved. That's not encyclopedic content. An article on widespread technology is entirely appropriate. Opining in the vaguest way imaginable upon design priorities for future iterations of that technology is entirely not. Snow (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [AS NOM]: I'll try to clarify my position further here. Imagine we have a Wikipedia article entitled "Resilient chess strategy"; it concerns itself wholly with forwarding principles on how to best approach your opponents the game, the most important strategic factors (as the author sees them), tips for refining your process, ect. That article would be quashed immediately, because we recognize Wikipedia is not the place for advice, how-to's or promotion of personal theories on the best practical approach to a situation. The current article is analogous; we already have a pre-existing article on Control systems -- it describes the overall technology in detail, separates subtypes and links to appropriate pages with further info. If anything from the currently debated page is found to be of value, it should be moved there. This article, meanwhile, has become nothing more than a backdoor means for the author of the original work to promote his ideas concerning the best design for a control system. Consider this following excerpt:

The benign human has an ability to quickly understand novel solutions, and provide the ability to adapt to unexpected conditions. This behavior can provide additional resilience to a control system, but reproducibly predicting human behavior is a continuing challenge. The ability to capture historic human preferences can be applied to bayesian inference and bayesian belief networks, but ideally a solution would consider direct understanding of human state using sensors such as an EEG. Considering control system design and interaction, the goal would be to tailor the amount of automation necessary to achieve some level of optimal resilience for this mixed initiative response. Presented to the human would be that actionable information that provides the basis for a targeted, reproducible response.

It doesn't even concern itself with existing technology or principles, bur rather is speculation on a new approach that the author is advocating. The whole article is like that, speaking in terms of "challenges," "goals," and "advantages" moving forward. Only the awkward, overly-wrought language is somewhat obscuring the fact. If someone wants to try to extract some of the content, parse it into something more intelligible and add it to control system, I say have at it. But the current article is self-promotional, and instructive/speculative in nature. It can't really be salvaged as a whole because it's basic purpose is at odds with policy on what a Wikipedia article is allowed to be. Snow (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The wikipedia article on control systems is far from comprehensive, has serious omissions, and different scales of depth. The networked control systems article has similar challenges, as are the 20+ other directly related articles that are all referenced from the control system article. Regardless, when considering resilient control systems, which is an aspect of cyber-physical, multi-disciplinary research that is primarily only being funded by fundamental science/engineering agencies such as NSF, the issues go far beyond control theory and control engineering. What has been laid out within the resilient control system article is a definition for resilience, as contrasted to reliability, and perspective on the human aspects that shape research within this area. It was not intended to be definitive, as it is not a mature research field, but a characterization of research area that can be enhanced as the research goes forward. The (IEEE Technically Co-sponsored) International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems, as well as other related conferences (CPS Week 2012) are defining and shaping this research area based upon these common precepts and a shared view by a number of organizations and people. --Crieger (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crieger, it's good to see you're still around afterall - even if we are on different sides of this debate, your presence can bring some clarity to some issues and perhaps save the content in one form or another. To address your immediate comments, let me start by saying that I appreciate you're coming from a complicated position; you're in an emerging field of research which has yet to establish it's fundamental principles and terminology, but you feel the developing perspectives are useful information. Here are my concerns: First, and most prominent in terms of the AfD, I don't think that a definition of resilience vis à vis control systems justifies an independent article. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with content where "resilience" in one sense or another is a relevant factor, but it's impractical allow a separate entry for this qualifying term, just as it would be inappropriate to have articles for "Efficient solar panels", "Effective algorithms" or "Powerful hydraulic presses". Qualifying discussions of existing technologies and what makes for a practical variant should be included in the article for said technology.

Comment:Unfortunately, you are comparing the generic use of a noun (adjective) modifier (good, nice, advanced) with a multi-organization research program that has both an IEEE symposium (now in its 5th year), many other conference venues and a load of papers moving forward under this definition and design. --134.20.11.89 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My second concern is that the findings of this field so-far seem to be rather vague, and thus it may not qualify for notability on those grounds as well. Several section of the article at present boil down to statements like "networked control systems are more vulnerable to cyber attack." and "cyber attackers will attempt to circumvent protections by exploiting vulnerabilities" (my paraphrasing), which are statements that should come as surprise to no one. In fact, most of the existing paragraphs could be reduced down to just a sentence or two once the excessive field-specific jargon is stripped off them (that's not a criticism of you or a suggestion that you're actively trying to inflate the content's significance, by the way -- I've been in academia and know how that stylized manner of writing can end up permeating your discussions with even non-experts, but Wikipedia demands an approach that is more accessible and plainly worded). But I just don't see much in terms of concrete findings or concepts in the current content. There are a couple of exceptions, including several mentions of novel technologies (EEG's or other sensors that report on the status of the control system operator, for example). But for each such piece of solid new information, there's a whole lot of filler in terms of vague speculation. On the whole, I just don't feel the article passes muster on WP:Notability. But since you have arrived back on Wikipedia just in the nick of time, I have a proposal for you. Suppose we merge this article with Control system, creating a section within that page titled "System design and resilience" (or something along those lines, I'm sure you can come up with something appropriate). We could reword the content a little to be more appropriate to a mass audience (you have to remember, the average Wikipedia user has never attended a scientific conference and may not have read so much as a single peer-review article) and trim the fat just a little. I happen to agree with your assessment that that existing Control system article is flawed in it's own right and I can't help but think it could benefit from the attention of an expert such as yourself. But regardless, it seems the most appropriate home for this content. Snow (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I do not believe your suggestion is a good one, and I also believe you missed the intention of my comment. The current article on control systems discusses of a few methods of control, a few algorithms of control with one computational technique expanded on (there are many) and many system architecture types, followed by links to 20+ control system articles, many of which could be combined under this one article, or tied in some more logical fashion than what you are suggesting for resilient control systems. The point is that the control system article is about, for and of interest to one discipline, control engineers. The resilient control system article considers a much broader context of modeling humans, malicious and benign, as well as delineating for those in technical fields what the research aspects are, and how they might be considered and include many disciplines. The notability issue was clearly already covered above by Chiswick, as the wikipedia article itself doesn't even match the original paper in a line by line comparison (only in the sections and definition), and is now littered with plenty of references and sources to address this concern. If it is suggested that a further discussion on developed technologies be provided before it is "viable" in your mind, one can be accommodated, but that will not address the ability of understanding the material. The idea of using the descriptive information in the wikipedia is to give some understanding of the research area to readers with some background. This is important as most of the technical articles, such as Bayesian Network, provide the ability to gain some level of understanding of the why/how/what, given you have some familiarity with the science to start.--134.20.11.89 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this need has to be balanced against the need (considered policy), to word all articles in a manner that is accessible to the average user. I understand that you redrafted the page from the original research document, but it still very much reads exactly like you'd expect research to be related at a symposium, and that's just not what we're going for here. It's not citing the relevant technical innovations that I'm talking about - that's entirely appropriate. But the entire article is couched in a very insular field-specific idiolect that's just going to be unapproachable for the average user. And I'm sorry, but if you can't see that, you're spending too much time at those conferences!

Now as to the much more relevant issue of notability, Chiswick has not responded to my concerns as I detailed them after his commentary. You make a point that noun and modifier are not the same as an established idiomatic term pertaining to a distinct field of study. This is true in principle, but it's a higher burden of proof if you're claiming this is now an established sub-discipline of industrial engineering; the sources which support individual points within the article don't necessarily also satisfy the WP:Notability requirements, though, having looked through those references, maybe you could make the argument. But even then, the article would be "Control system resilience theory" or something along those lines and would necessitate a different approach to the content entirely. All of that being said, you have offered to add content concerning more concrete examples of the technology involved to contextualize things. To answer your implied question, yes, that absolutely would go a ways to mitigating what I feel is lacking in the article. That would put some meat on the bones, since this article, as it's title and lead present it, is supposed to be about a trend in technology, not technological speculation. That, and the fact that you seemed to be gone, are the only reason I brought it to AfD, and only after waiting for comment on the talk page for a while. The problems with tone can be slowly refined, but the more immediate bar that the article has to meet is relevant content that satisfies the articles title topic and some solid specific examples of the technology in practice are exactly what that content should be, imo. And I understand that a big part of the subject of the article is the feedback loop between the operator and system and that theory is by necessity wedged in there, I just think the technology should be front and center so the article is consistent in what it's subject is. Snow (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Control Engineering in general is not a sub-discipline of industrial engineering, let alone the multiple disciplines involved with resilient control systems. Most of the technical articles, such as I mentioned about Bayesian Network, are beyond the normal non-technical user, but you clearly don't make that distinction, nor do you look at the serious omissions and overlaps of the other articles within all the series of links in the control system article. The networked control system article, for instance, specifies systems features that are common to all digital control systems (of the last 30 years) and specifies briefly that the distinction is the communications network and its impacts on the feedback loop. There are a number of papers and compiled volumes that discuss this, but only research into how to possible address latency with no certified solutions. This article says little to even characterize the breadth of communications-related issues that can impact the control loops, nor even much of the more promising research that has been performed to find theories and solutions. However, I do not see you comment on this article or any of the other plethora of control system related links and similar so-called issues, only the resilient control systems article. With this said, I will look to enhance the article with additional content regarding the system technology framework, which I think is most applicable.--Crieger (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure many of the others are flawed or limited but, with respect, we're not discussing the failings of other articles here. Actually, I am going to do some editing on Control system, which has some of its own issues, and would be happy to have your knowledge and assistance in that task, but that really should be discussed elsewhere and can wait. Snow (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite relevant, as it relates to what your root motivations are, as clearly all technical discussions are going to be somewhat (as a minimum) foreign to the non-technical, but that doesn't limit the benefit, and the complaints you oddly have about this article, are consistent with attributes of other articles discussing technologies of similar maturity.--Crieger (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my motivations are also not at all relevant here (other than to say that you should assume good faith). I can't even recall under what context I came to the article, to be honest with you, but I saw it had some significant issues and here we are. Regardless, the failings of other articles and how the present one stacks up next to them is not the focus of this process. I can't edit all of the technical articles on Wikipedia (well, give me time, we'll see ;), but I can attempt to address issues when I come across them. It's an iterative process. As to your point that all technical discussion are going to be somewhat foreign to those uninitiated in the relevant field, this is true, but the current article does not even approach language which represents a minimum barrier to understanding while still maintaining accuracy. The relevant policy for that can be found here (the sections of particular relevance are items number 7 and especially 8).

You don't remember how you arrived here, although you have been passionate enough to write extensively about what is wrong with this one of actually hundreds of control related articles? Okay. It doesn't come close to the concepts you are familiar, perhaps. However, I would submit it does come close for the majority of people that would even care about such things as resilient control, human systems and cyber security. It also provides an introduction that is very straight forward for most, as per the guidance you referenced. Compared to academic papers, this is a very high level read. I am concerned you admit there are similar issues with other subject area articles, but yet as an honest broker, I don't see you go through them and mark them all for deletion (not suggesting in any way that is an appropriate response, but certainly consistent for you). Note that I have added some additional text and a figure, as it was fairly quick to do, and will add more as I get time. While it adds more "meat," I doubt it will make any strides to be more understandable for you.--Crieger (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made quite a few accusations there, so let me address them in parcel:

You don't remember how you arrived here, although you have been passionate enough to write extensively about what is wrong with this one of actually hundreds of control related articles? However, I would submit it does come close for the majority of people that would even care about such things as resilient control, human systems and cyber security.

I wouldn't say I'm passionate about this particular process; rather this is the kind of routine work that needs to be done to maintain the quality, integrity and tone of the project. Not that I'm under circumstances required to impart to you my motivations here -- these issues should be decided on the merits of the content and the facts, not motivations, real or imagined -- but for the record, let me assure you there's no particular driving passion at work here. I've been trying to be polite about the quality of the content, but if you want me to be frank, I found a horribly (for Wikipedia's purposes anyway) written article of questionable notability and substance which I felt should be deleted. In the interest of consensus and not excluding another contributor's efforts summarily (and because AfD's have many times surprisingly turned an article that was felt useless into something of value), I have tried to work with you in this discussion and on the page itself. You'll notice that I placed a tag at the top of this page to mark my endorsement of keeping this discussion open and your article -- and we rarely use possessive language to refer to articles here, but it seems inappropriately accurate in this case -- from being deleted. I've also tried to help adjust the wording of sections to be more consistent with encyclopedic tone and even fixed some formatting issues. This despite the fact that A) I still have serious misgivings about the value and appropriateness of the content in general and B) my only help in the process is an inexperienced editor with a serious conflict of interest concerning the article's subject matter who shows little interests in taking time to understand Wikipedia policy and process and who views me with open suspicion. It's a pretty ballsy move to question the motivations of another editor when the article in question is basically a transcription of one of your personal research papers, with your own name and work cited prominently (aside from this article, you've contributed in only three others and in each case only to reference your own work or talk up the institution you work for). In any event, your making insinuations that I've decided to go after this subject matter out of sheer vindictive zeal for some reason is not helping your case here. And doesn't make much sense, for that matter, unless maybe you think a resilient control system killed my brother?

Comment:Actually, I believe you are disregarding that a number of other people and organizations are part of the effort. In general, you have also not been polite about the content. I started questioning why you wanted it deleted, as the type of content was consistent with others in the area, but you seem to concentrate on this one. Resilient control systems is an area I understand about, and both the definition and aspects presented lay the ground work for further enhancement by other editors.

Okay. It doesn't come close to the concepts you are familiar, perhaps.

It's not my area of professional expertise, no. But Wikipedia's contributor's are not required to be credentialed experts on the subjects which they contribute to. In fact, the popular view is that being too intimately associated with a subject can be a serious obstacle to objectivity (a premise you ought to be familiar with as a researcher, even if you are in a field of engineering) and level-headed editing and that, as such these topics should be avoided or at least approached with extreme caution -- hint, hint. Even experienced editors have to be careful of this, to say nothing of editors who created an account for no other apparent purpose than to write about their own research. But if you meant to imply that I don't understand the subject matter, then the answer to your question is "hardly". The subject of your article is not that difficult to grasp, nor is the technical complexity that high. The only reason it is difficult to digest is the convoluted (for the average reader, I imagine almost nonsensical) researcher's idiolect that you have presented it in. The only reason I don't have that much difficulty with it is because I come from an academic background initially by way of a social science; there's no abstract, overly-wrought, field-specific-buzz-term-laden, needlessly unapproachable mess of academic psuedo-speak that anyone can throw at me that years of daily exposure to sociologists and anthropologists didn't prepare me to parse! You're not nearly as bad as some I've seen, but the fact remains that the writing style you have applied to this article is completely inconsistent with the tone we strive for here. I have several times directed you to relevant policy pages which signify the kind of language that is expected in a Wikipedia article and which also explain why we use this standard, but you have shown no interest in acclimating yourself to those standards. Instead you continue to insist that your approach would be superior to the people you feel would get the most use out of the article, oblivious to the fact that we intentionally try to write articles in a fashion such that their content can be understood by virtually anyone -- including someone without technical knowledge in the broader field which the subject belongs to and even someone who can't or won't follow a single link on the page to a related article.

Comment:The standards you reference are a guideline, and seeing the resulting products in a related technical area, I see no issue to this and it appears that you are the only editor that really has.

It also provides an introduction that is very straight forward for most, as per the guidance you referenced.

I'm not sure if you are referencing the lead, or the section actually labelled "introduction" (which is redundant to the lead on a Wikipedia article, by the way). If you're referring to the lead, then the reason it is so much more plainly worded is because I added it, as an attempt to point you towards the type of language you might use elsewhere in the article which informs clearly upon the subject without compromising the accuracy of the concepts; unfortunately, it seems it did not have its intended effect, seeing as the content you've added since continues to employ the same inaccessible language you've used in the rest of the article.

Comment:I was referring to the Introduction, but I have since edited the lead that you added as I don't believe it quite reflected the intent. I appreciate your thoughts behind rewriting it, however, as it seems you got enough out of the article to be close.

Compared to academic papers, this is a very high level read.

See, that's a problematic viewpoint for Wikipedia. I'd say most of us here are of the opinion that even extremely complex subjects can be explained to the lay-person if they are broken down and imparted in the right fashion. If you are not capable of doing this for a given subject matter, then you probably shouldn't be a contributor on it's article, let alone basically the sole editor. We have articles ranging from cosmology and mathematical methodology to sitcoms and obscure footwear; the authors of each of those articles had to find a way to reconcile the complexities and context of the subject matter with formulating articles that are accessible to everyone (it's kinda the mission statement, in fact). I'm not saying that this balance is always easy -- sometimes it takes years of collaboration and consensus-building to get it right. What I am saying is that you're miles off from that mark at present and you're proving unwilling (or as-yet incapable) of leaving behind the context in which you usually discuss these concepts and adapting yourself to the requirements of this project, which is one of many reasons why editors are discouraged from contributing where they have a conflict of interest. Here, let's try something -- detail for me, in brief, the ten major statements of fact that you find most relevant to your article, only word them as you would explain them to a highschooler, using no (or at least the smallest amount feasible of) terminology that only a person who works in or near your field would know. If you, apparently a leading authority in the subject, can't do that, then I submit that either A) you are not the ideal person to be participating on this article, let alone being more or less its sole driving force or B) the article 's subject lacks sufficient substance to justify its existence. Or do you believe the complexity of your article is so much more vastly demanding than, say Enumerative combinatorics or Big Bang nucleosynthesis that it defies this approach? Because once I got past the cryptic semantics you employed, I didn't find the content of the present article particularly hard to digest, if I'm to be honest.

Comment:I don't believe this is a complex article, and is not written that way. Unfortunately, it is tough to parse all the terms consistent with the field and still maintain the relevance of the content to an audience that would care, and the extreme examples you mention (and there are plenty more where that came from on Wikipedia) are beyond most high schools or liberal arts college graduates. For those that just want to see what it might mean, they are covered as well, as they don't have to read past the introduction. There is credible of substance to substantiate this article's existence, including several symposia proceedings available on the web, research project results for 5+ years, and engineering documents from a number of organizations and participants.

I am concerned you admit there are similar issues with other subject area articles, but yet as an honest broker, I don't see you go through them and mark them all for deletion (not suggesting in any way that is an appropriate response, but certainly consistent for you).

Actually, yes it would be consistent for me to mark articles with similar issues, and I do, when I see them. But, and I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you -- I'm only one editor. The fact is, I came across this article and it and only it is relevant to the present discussion. You seem to be of the impression that I should only nominate articles for deletion which I am familiar with through some particular context. Perhaps you are unaware that we have many dedicated editors (essential to the operation of this project) who spend the bulk of their time involved in tedious, repetitive tasks involved with removing inappropriate content who rarely ever participate in adding their own. There's no degree of previous level of involvement required -- either with regards to the subject or the article itself -- to make a change to page here, even a deletion. All that is required is that you follow policy and make an effort to form a consensus with other editors. Of course, sitting back and familiarizing yourself with the process before making assertions about how things should be doesn't hurt. Also, it would perhaps benefit you to recall that this is not the article's first AfD, nor am I the first editor to find fault with your fundamental approach to it.

Comment:Understood. The former AfD was more widely debated, and boiled down to use of open content. Although there were people on both sides of the debate, I conceded and rewrote it.

Note that I have added some additional text and a figure, as it was fairly quick to do, and will add more as I get time. While it adds more "meat," I doubt it will make any strides to be more understandable for you.

These additions have done nothing to address the systemic issues with the article, nor do they remove the overriding notability issue raised above. I was actually preparing to dig in for the long haul and spend the next couple of weeks parsing your material into something a little more understandable and seeing if the we couldn't save the article after-all, but given your refusal to do any research regarding Wikipedia process and policy and your outright paranoia about my motivations, I now view this level of collaboration infeasible.

Comment:I, in fact, did read the few references you pointed me. I believe my discussion is on practicality of doing so and consistency with articles of a similar subject matter, which prompted the other discussion.

And shortage of editors, however regrettable, is no reason for deletion either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename (and rework) to Resilience engineering (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), a clearly notable and somewhat more general topic, in which the main area, however, is the design of resilient control systems. --Lambiam 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea has potential. Snow (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the (benign) human interaction role is quite similar, as evidenced by at least one reference to a noted text in this research area. However, there are a number of aspects that are not well covered from normal resilience engineering standpoint, including cyber security. As noted, it is also broader topic (I suggest quite a bit, and know personally one of those leading this area), but certainly very notable and deserving its own project in its own right. Cyber-physical system research also is a related area, and referenced in this article.--Crieger (talk) 13:41, 17 June 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 the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 2004

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

It is merely a list of 12 links to deaths in each month. Those links can be put under the year article 2004. If necessary, this page should redirect to the "Deaths" section 2004#Deaths, similar to the redirect from Deaths in 1996 to 1996#Deaths. Quest for Truth (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also just lists of deaths in each month:

Strong keep. These pages provide access and a point of entry to lists of deaths of thousands of notable people. Recent deaths is one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia; the above pages follow on chronologically from that page. These pages continue to be visited long after the year has ended. Deaths in 2011 is still visited by over 600 people every day. Deaths in 20nn has a strong history in Wikipedia. The nomination does not suggest any policy or guideline breached by these lists. WWGB (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The attached talk pages contain very important precedents, consensus and decisions concerning the Deaths in 20nn suite of articles, which will be lost if the article pages are deleted. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In addition to what's stated above, the Deaths pages serve an encyclopedic purpose by assisting researchers seeking, for whatever legitimate reason, only to find out who died in a particular time period. The Deaths pages also serve as extremely convenient indices of articles and references related to each other by temporal proximity of subject death. Since they are fairly long, subsuming them under the year articles would result in overly long year articles, and the year articles would end up containing lists. While list articles such as the Deaths ones do not violate any policy, including very long lists in another article, such as a year article, would violate policy. Guyovski (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For readers looking for links to deaths in each month such as Deaths in January 2004, these links can be put under 2004#Deaths (Other years can be treated similarly). It is really pointless to have an article to hold just 12 links of each month's deaths. What I am suggesting is by making 2004 contain links to Deaths in each month 2004. If we expect a high traffic to "Deaths in 20nn", it can redirect to "20nn#Deaths" and users can access the information equally well.--Quest for Truth (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a content page for deaths in each year. Lugnuts (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidate into decadal articles, such as 2000s (deaths), or better yet, the monthly lists can be merged in a Navbox. The stubby section layout badly contradicts WP:BODY, so I'm going to address that concern. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your creation of {{Navbox deaths}} and your edits in the pages that makes it look much better now. It was so awkward to have 12 sections with each having only a link to each month. --Quest for Truth (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like these pages are just being used as a category (by listing other articles within its scope). Why don't we use a category instead? Adding the links to the year (e.g. 2004) would also appear to be very helpful, and extremely relevant to the 2004 article. If we do that, then Deaths in 2004 would be entirely redundant, and can become a redirect. So, the question seems to be: why shouldn't we list these articles in the most obvious place, and why shouldn't we use a category to categorize articles? That seems to be the most eloquent solution, providing a standard and useful scheme for readers to find this content. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you might think lists and categories would be redundant to each other, but WP policy is that they are complementary to each other (Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). Anarchangel (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that if we create a category, and we add these links to the year article (e.g. 2004), then the list (Deaths in 2004) would become redundant. That's because we would have the information in two places (including one article), as well as a redirect, which would allow the information to be found very easily. I'm not sure why these links aren't already included in the year article (what could be more relevant but a list of notable events specific to that year), and that would eliminate the need for this list. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. For attribution reasons, these pages cannot be deleted, as they (or at least the ones I checked) contain the entire early history of the monthly pages. The latter are archived versions of the content of the year pages at a specific date (+later additions). --Hegvald (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can. We do that all the time, where a page's content was copied or transcluded into another. The attribution is still there, just not visible to regular editors. If it's a serious problem, we always have methods of merging histories. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merging is hardly possible with these pages, considering the overlap that exists between adjacent months and even years. But you are welcome to ask someone who usually does that sort of thing to get a second and better informed opinion. And deleting these pages is just making things unnecessarily complicated both for attribution and any other historical purposes (such as checking for removed entries). If they are really felt to be redundant, the simple and obvious solution is to redirect them to some central page and make a note on relevant talk pages about how to find the page histories. --Hegvald (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I'm not sure this really qualifies for a speedy keep, but the nomination reason advanced is not policy based in any way. A list-of-lists is a perfectly acceptable way of organizing information, and the fact that these may substantially overlap with categories is no reason to remove the alternate navigation methods, per WP:CLN. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a reasonable link. --Artene50 (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A list of lists is a perfectly acceptable article, and keeping these pages would be much easier than any complex history merges needed for attribution reasons. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:04, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep as it fully lists of people who died. Adjkasi (discuss me) 10:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read any of the above lists, you will find people who died are listed in the monthly articles but not those yearly articles. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion We already have Category:2004_deaths. I'm not sure how much information is added by having the same information in articles. Categories are easier to maintain. If we want we can further divide the categories into subcategories by month. i.e. Deaths_in_January_2004 - The Determinator p t c 01:32, 23 June 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. Consensus is to keep. Although some commentary is revealing about a possible move to a more generic name, the pop-culture arguments seem to put a wall up against that (that said, this is a good example of a "utility belt") (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman's utility belt

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

This article is deos not meet the WP:GNG should be deleted or merged with Batman. It gives WP:Undue weight to this trivial subject finaly being a work of fiction cannot be resonabley WP:V. Finaly this page creates too much overhead in patrol work. OrenBochman 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy obsessive fixations, Batman! Get out the fanboy repellent!! That is to say, delete, obviously. I'm sure a few elements can be merged with the main article but, honestly it feels like someone must have planted this just to give us poor souls haunting AfD a little laugh! Snow (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BELONG, this is a purely personal point-of-view. Warden (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not encyclopaedic; subject does not warrant a separate article from Batman. Richard75 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNENCYC, this is an empty argument. Warden (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will elaborate: it is not notable. To qualify as notable the topic must have significant coverage in independent sources. In the words of Wikipedia:Notability, " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail (my emphasis), so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." If this article has had to be cobbled together by collecting a single fact from each source -- the sources only touching upon the subject in a sentence or two (this is debated by other editors below) -- then it is original research and thus does not satisfy the notability requirement. It does not matter how popular the subject is, how important it is within the context of the Batman comics and films, how verifiable it is, or how many editors want to keep it. Richard75 (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're changing your story. And your new line of argument is not supported by the facts as multiple sources have been presented which provide significant coverage of the topic. Warden (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the same argument to me, but whatever: if the first time I made it it was "an empty argument" then I am entitled to improve on it or change it. I will address your second point below. Richard75 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE fail. Batman's utility belt has been around for 70+ years. You think there would be some critical commentary on its place within the fictional DC universe? Me too: 1, 2, 3. But wait, there's more! Batman's utility belt is such a well-known pop culture icon, there are multiple references that compare real-world items to it: 4, 5, 6. This is why best practices are to check Google first before nominating an article for deletion: to a non-fan, it might seem trivial, and impossible that it would meet GNG. However, the only really reliable test is to actually look for sources, which clearly had not been done here. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, sources are sufficient to establish verifiability but do not necessarily satisfy notability through sheer numbers. To me, this is clearly a kind of POV fork being used to supply undue weight to a minor part of the franchise mythos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 June 2012‎

The first two sources in the external links above only mention the batbelt in one or two sentences, in one instance merely listing some articles contained in the belt -- neither goes into any detail, and one is a list of miscellaneous bat-things. The third does not mention the bat belt at all, but it refers to a book about superheroes so I assume the link is meant to tell us that the book mentions it -- I don't know what it says as it is not cited in the article, so the link is not helpful, but if someone can either quote the passage here or better still, put it in the article, then we can judge whether it is a significant source which fulfills the notability guidelines. Sources 4 to 6 are single-sentence humorous references to Batman's utility belt in articles which are not about that subject and do not discuss it at all, which certainly is not enough to establish notability. Richard75 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not seeing the detailed discussion of Batman's utility belt in the third source, then your argument is excusable, even if baseless--Google Books does apparently limit content displayed depending on where the editor is, and I see a multi-page discussion of what is on the belt, how it's used over time, etc. On the other hand, as I've said below, these are not an exhaustive list, but an indication what five minutes with Google Books can produce. Those who want the article deleted need to not only impeach all of these sources, but also demonstrate that other such sources aren't likely to exist. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is a vandalism magnet that hurts patrollers, it indicates it is popular with our readers. Protection is the sort of thing to help with vandalism rather than deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pppularity does not equate to notability. Richard75 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. A notable topic, and in my view, there is too much material for merger to be a good option here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy keep Batman! As a pop-culture icon with several reliable sources that discuss it in detail, it's notable enough for an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the suggestions given below, I would also recommend a move to Utility belt, and be rewritten in such a way that it would be about the utility belt in general in fiction and in real life, not just about Batman. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per Jclemens. Also look at [9], [10], [11]. Cavarrone (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered in detail in numerous sources such as The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes; Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon; The Science of Superheroes; &c. The topic therefore satisfies WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretty important p b p 15:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've checked all of the links supplied above and contain only passing references to the utility belt, usually a single sentence long and usually for the sole purpose of supplying a simile to some multi-use device. In fact, most of them spend much more time on other elements of Batman's gadgetry (body armor, bat-a-rangs, ect.) that do not (and should not) have their own article. Also, though two of them are full-on books and decent sources, most of the others are questionable as valid Wikipedia sources. As for the sources on the article itself, all but one come from informal fansites and community projects which disqualify them as valid sources. Regardless, there's plenty to establish WP:Verifiability, but not so much WP:Notability. I can find a thousand pop culture references to Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own page! Snow (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The separate page is port-wine stain which is illustrated with a large picture of Gorbachev. That's somewhat generic as he's not the only person to have such a thing. For a better analogy see sonic screwdriver; list of James Bond gadgets; Excalibur; &c. And I disagree with you about the quality of sources. The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes is quite satisfactory as a source and has pages about the utility belt. Works such as The Essential Batman Encyclopedia and Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon have plenty too. Warden (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a source for the article. Richard75 (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going to answer this in a hurry. Don't take the curtness to be dismissiveness. Port-wine stain is not about Gorbachev's iteration, it simply uses his for illustrative purposes. Not a relevant analogy. See WP:POV fork, WP:Notability, and item 9 of this section of "What Wikipedia is not". I'd argue Sonic screwdriver shouldn't be it's own article, the list of James Bond gadgets is pushing it and Excalibur, a nearly-thousand year-old legend with deep culture significance well out-classes the notability of all three other examples. Regardless, the notability for this article seems lacking, whatever is going on in those cases. Snow (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty impressive example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - jc37 02:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, how exactly? WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to situations where an editor advocates for the removal of content on the basis of subjective dislike (for example, in the case of a person who objects to content on the grounds that it offends their religious sensibilities). I made a valid argument on the basis of policies that I outlined in detail. Perhaps you should review those policies (and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, ironically) and then respond to my argument on the merits of the facts. Snow (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're making comments which are subjective and not based upon the sources. You don't feel that one is as good as another. That's called WP:OR among other things. You're welcome to your opinion, but it's still IDONTLIKEIT just the same.

As for reading WP:AADD, I may have read it once or twice already... But please feel free to help enlighten me to how you feel I am misunderstanding you. - jc37 05:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to go into it in depth, but there's a huge difference between WP:IDONTLIKEIT and simply strongly favoring a delete; WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns solely cases where an argument is made that has no relevant policy support. It has nothing to do with how strongly the editor is opposed to the content staying or how many different arguments they site against it. It is completely dependent on whether the arguments they cite are based in simple personal preference (i.e. "I don't think we should give these jerks any more free publicity!") or if they are based on the content failing to meet policy guidelines ("This page contains only contentious material that has never been sourced, despite repeated challenges). So no, it's not at all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And my opinion on the sources is no more or less subjective than yours or any other editor's. AfD's (and indeed virtually all deliberation on content on Wikipedia) always require us to make personal judgements on the quality of sources, but we have to contextualize those perceived deficiencies in relevance to policy in order for it to be meaningful to the discussion. Now, if you're claiming I misrepresented the sources in some way, please be more specific? For that matter, how can anything I've said here be construed as original research? Snow (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famed.— Racconish^Tk 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily verifiable as noted above. - jc37 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not verifiability but notability. Richard75 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep as suitable spinout of parent topic and easily sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Proposal: I submit that policy leaves us only one approach. We have to remove all content from the article that does not have an appropriate source -- which would be the vast majority as almost all of the sources come from community-fan site and thus are inappropriate. Contributors to the article (and willing proponents of the "keep" option) should then be allowed a decent amount of time to secure new (and appropriate) sources for these details and reintroduce what they can. The resulting version of the page should then be re-assessed to see if the resulting content is best kept as a separate article or merged with Batman. Snow (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong queu. This discussion is about notability for a stand-alone artcicle on a topic arguable as an iconic fictional element of a long-running fiction series... comic books, television, film... Discussions about a possible merge belong on the article's talk page, and can take place there if this is ultimately kept through a consensus of editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD guidelines clearly designate that merger is an acceptable position to advocate here, and this approach is used in many cases to save content from a nominated article that would otherwise be deleted part and parcel. Snow (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, This approach is used in many cases to save content from a nominated article that would otherwise be deleted part and parcel, but in this case I see an overwhelming consensus in keeping the article as it is. Probably it's time to stop beating this dead horse . Cavarrone (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except AfD's are not a vote. They are not decided by how many people support a given argument, but rather the content of the competing arguments -- otherwise there would be no need to assign an administrator to make the final call, we could simply use a vote mechanism. Consensus is important to the process, but in the role of fleshing out the pros and cons of the different proposed solutions. But by no means is the popular view guaranteed to prevail. Snow (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) - And once merged, it will likely be spun out again per WP:SS. I'm always amazed by editors who look at a technical function of the wiki (the concept of "pages") and subjectively think this information "deserves" a page, and this information should only be listed as part of another page. That's only a question of style and presentation. Once we've hung our hats on WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:NOR, the rest is just WP:BHTT nonsense imnsho... - jc37 05:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering the numerous notable policy pages which explicitly concern themselves with this issue and the many years of debate that went into forming those standards, it's clear that the community at large does not agree and that determining which content is worthy of its own article (as an independent but related issue to whether the content should be included in the first place) is considered important to the quality, organization, and tone of the project.Snow (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage found proving it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Against any delete/merge/redirect now or later. Dream Focus 08:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per everybody. Obviously notable. CallawayRox (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument, just a vote -- this process does not work by voting. And invoking Wikipedia:Snowball clause (I know you are not the first to do so, this is to everyone who did) is not really applicable here -- that is really for people who have failed to understand or apply the relevant policy / procedure, and it does not address the arguments raised above in favour of deletion, which are not wholly unreasonable or unmeritorious. Richard75 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The belt is an iconic accessory of a notable superhero. It's right up there with the Bat-ears, Bat-symbol and Bat-cape. CallawayRox (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not an argument. Notability is not inherited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources fail WP:GNG in that the coverage is exclusively trivial and is reduced to one-sentence mentions, the result being a massive plot-dump devoid of any real world analysis. Contributors here should keep in mind that "notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity".Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have not checked the book sources suggested by Warden. They are definitely more than trivial mentions. Cavarrone (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. notability is dependent upon sources being available, whether used in the article or not. Concerns toward the article's current state apear to be addressable through regular editing, even were such to not happen immediately. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon, it's literally a one-sentence mention. The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes and The Science of Superheroes appear to be nothing more than mere mentions in plot summaries and descriptions without analytical or evaluative claims. The article's current state being entirely due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, regular editing cannot fix it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more than mere mentions? Not reilly... The Science of Superheroes covers the belt for several pages (from 37 to 43), The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes covers it from page 41 to 44. Cavarrone (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When said pages are filled with variations of "the following items are contained in Batman's utility belt" and enumarations and descriptions of said items, yes, that's mere mentions, not "analytic or evaluative claims".Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, ie The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes covers in details the history of the belt, its making and development during the comic's history. And it is pretty obvious that an "utility belt" history/analysis is full of references to the different items it contains, as the presence of its various items is why it is notable and important, in and out of the comics. Cavarrone (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling primary data (ie publication dates associated with plot points) =/= analysis. References =/= analysis.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this is your point... The comics are primary sources. A book that, "one step removed from an event", relies with them to offer a detailed history of the subject, though its making and development =/= original research.Cavarrone (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary data without analysis =/= analysis.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of analysis. For example, Batman unmasked: analyzing a cultural icon discusses the topic in the context of establishing the claims for original authorship. The Science of Superheroes has pages analysing the technical feasibility of the various gadgets in the belt. Your claim that such material is primary is false. Warden (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of those is really the type of analysis we're going for here. With regard to the first example, I'm not sure if you meant the belt was discussed in terms of establishing Batman's authorship or its own. If the former, then it's very useful information but clearly is best placed in Batman, but if the latter, it's a case of putting the cart before the horse (and circular logic); authorship can't really be a relevant issue if the topic has not independently established its notability already. As to the second example, people speculate all the time about the technical feasibility of fictional phenomena, regardless of how notable the topic is. The fact that there are people who care deeply enough about Batman to do this about any random element of the franchise is unsurprising but does nothing to establish notability as per our needs here. What we're really looking for here is sources that comment on how the subject has had real world impact. So, for example, if a band had named themselves "The Utility Belts" (hey, it could happen, there's The Seatbelts!) or if some idiot "vigilante" had constructed himself a home made utility belt and then made the news when he plunged to his death while using it. The examples don't have to be that prominent, but that's the basic idea - the subject needs to have had significant real-world cultural or practical implications (in-and-of-themselves and not inherited from their parent subject) in order to justify the article under notability. Snow (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a band called themselves the Utility Belts then that's just pop trivia and we're not much interested in that. But if you want to be an idiot and construct your own belt then several of these sources tell how to do just that. The topic is covered from all sorts of angles by numerous sources. If you're only interested in particular types of coverage then that's just your personal POV and so carries no weight. The bottom line here is that these sources are detailed, independent and reliable and that's all we need to satisfy the WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the distinction being made, because its not a personal one and has nothing to do with POV. The fact that a source exists that speculates on the real-world viability of the fictional subject does not establish notability (unless that source itself has had significant cultural impact). The examples I provided were not by any means meant to be exhaustive or ideal in nature. What sets these (hypothetical) examples apart from the actual sources that have been located so far is that they would establish real world context that would prove the utility belt has had some kind of cultural or practical impact outside of just appearing inside the Batman comics. Snow (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require further sources to establish the impact of sources because that would lead us to an infinite regress - see What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. We just require sources period and we have them in abundance. Those sources were written, edited and published professionally and so demonstrate that the noteworthiness of the topic has been recognised by the real world. Your opinion is POV because it has no such support. Warden (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We just require sources period"; not at all true. Snow (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. Warden (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute response (honestly), but the only reason I was so brief is that I did not see how the statement requires further elaboration. The statement that any published source which comments at length on a subject matter is sufficient to establish notability is simply untrue, as per the very policy you cited (WP:GNG) and multiple others. AfD are just one of several examples of situations where the community can evaluate whether sources speak enough to the notability of a subject to justify content. Also your GEB reference is not relevant since I never suggested an approach that would involve that kind of upward recursion; I did not say (nor did I mean to imply) that the source was an unacceptable one (in terms of meeting Wikipedia's blanket standards), but rather that one person's opining on the technical feasibility of the utility belt did no constitute real-world significance. The whole bit about the book being famous in it's own right (which in retrospect I should have foreseen as confusing to some, was a hypothetical argument that if the source had lead to further cultural exposure for the belt, then establishing notability would be more viable. But no, the fact that a fictional technology has been discussed at length with regard to actual physics, pragmatics, ect. (even in a published source) does not really establish its non-fictional notability at large sufficiently to meet our needs here. But in any event, while we sit here bouncing this point back and forth and turning this thread into an actual infinite regress, the fact that Masem has proposed a solution bellow that may prove quite viable is being ignored. Perhaps we should all redirect our energies into exploring that option rather than butting heads over a point that may prove moot anyway. Fall in line or I'll be forced to get out my banana! :) (that's probably not going to come off right to non Monty Python fans...) Snow (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with regard to The Science of Superheroes (the only one of the two I could confirm) those pages are not really concerned with the utility belt specifically, though they do contain a few references. But the more relevant point is that none of those references necessarily speak to notability. The fact that somebody cared enough about the subject matter to chronicle the fictional history of the utility belt (even in a published source) does not really establish the subject's real-world cultural or practical significance. Snow (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "discussion" of authorship in Batman Unmasked, but just a one-sentence mention. The word "discussion" implies at least lengthier coverage and confrontation of point of views, or at least the gathering of a multiplicity of voices goign in the same direction. As I said, this doesn't exist in Batman Unmasked, there's just an inconsequential one-sentence mention, and Warden should either admit he's not telling the truth about sources, or reproduce here the discussion he's refering to and prove it's not a one-sentence mention.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO (I see this point appears to be quite subjective) this real-world significance is demonstrated by the sources provided by JClements and by others. Cavarrone (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, those are mostly one-sentence references with no context outside the mention of the belt's existence. Snow (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's pages and pages of coverage in the sources. Please don't misrepresent them. Warden (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the specific sources we were discussing. Please don't misrepresent me. Snow (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you were under the impression that those are the only sources that exist. Those six sources represent about 5 minutes' work on my part, using only the tools linked at the top of the page, without any herculean effort. I probably looked at 8-10 sources total to come up with those six, which are offered just as examples of the copious amounts of independent, non-trivial, reliable source commentary which exists for this topic... and I didn't even try obvious variant text searches: each of those uses "Batman's utility belt" as a quoted phrase. Those familiar with Googling know how limiting such phrasing can be. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemes, you should know by now that sources for notability should be non-trivial. Have the honesty to admlit all the sources you have provided are trivial one-sentence mention and stop makling false claims.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the source I labeled "3" in detail, and let me know whether 1) you missed reading the rest of the discussion in that source or 2) you have an incredibly high view of what constitutes "non trivial". Your tone is overly and inappropriately aggressive, and I expect your future communications to be more collegial. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally Jclemes, it was not a comment upon your editorial or discussion approach, I was simply responding to a specific statement made about what those particular sources which I found to be in error. It was not intended as a judgement of all potential sources or of you in any way. Snow (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I find a bunch of sources, that's an indication that there are almost certainly more out there. It's not my--or anyone's--job to prove notability, but rather my efforts demonstrate, on balance of probabilities, that there's enough likelihood that there are sources to establish notability. The arguments against the specific six that I picked out of the first two pages of Google results miss the mark: even if these particular six don't amount to two independent, non-trivial, reliable source mentions (they do), then there are still plenty more where that came from. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't know how to be more clear about this: I was addressing a very specific claim made about very specific sources. That claim, if it needs clarity, being that they were ideal for establishing notability, when in fact they were the weakest examples put forward yet, being little more than mere mentions of the subject's existence (yes I understand you didn't apply rigorous standards to these selections, but that doesn't change the fact that the claim was wrong). For the record, nobody asked you to prove anything in this thread. As regards your probability argument, that is complete speculation and you are patently wrong when you forward that it is sufficient to prove the case for notability. The facts are that the current article lacks acceptable sources which establish its notability and as such it is a candidate for deletion under well-established policy. The AfD process allows for the opportunity to secure such sources or find alternate solutions, but more than vague prognostication is needed: we can't just assume the appropriate sources exists because of a subjective assessment like "I'm pretty sure the odds are with us that they exist". If you're a proponent for the keep you're welcome to search for sources that resolve the issue, though of course you are not required to - you may also just make your policy opinion known and leave it at that. But you can't make inherently subjective (and thus flawed) statistical arguments that are based on presumptions that have no empirical validity and expect them to count for much. Snow (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE establishes that those who wish to assert a topic's non-notability are expected to demonstrate, through appropriate searches, that sources are not likely to exist. All I've done is demonstrated that that was not done, and noted that in my initial post. Those arguing for deletion have failed to say "But those are all trivial sources AND the only sources that exist!" Even if the first part were true, which it is not, the second part is required to demonstrate that the topic should not be kept. That is why you are not winning over editors: because your interpretation of policy is flawed, and the result you're looking for defies common sense. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're selectively quoting that section to create the impression of a burden of proof upon those who think the article should be removed that does not actually exist anywhere in policy; quite the contrary WP:Notability clearly states that the article has to be established in this regard in order to be kept. A misstep in the nomination process (and there's no proof that the NOM didn't check for sources and simply found non that were appropriate in his view) does not change the facts as they are: the article still lacks viable sources which establish it's notability. It's that simple. No we do not have to scour the sum total of human knowledge to be sure they don't exist and no we don't have to take your impression that they are likely to exist as granted. We can wait and appropriate amount of time for someone to find viable sources -- at the end of which time this AfD will probably close with the article deleted if no one has -- or we can find another resolution entirely. And for the record, I'm not trying to win anyone over; AfD's are not popularity contests nor are they even straight up and down votes. I'm simply stating my opinion on the policy as it applies here. The mod who closes the discussion will decide which arguments are most in keeping with policy. Consensus in the AfD process is more useful for feeling out the issue and finding non-controversial resolutions, where possible. Discussion for just such a possible solution is taking place bellow, if you care to participate. Snow (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the policy is not congruent with the community's consensus in general or in specific. As far as selectively quoting things, you're overlooking the WP:NRVE part of WP:N "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." The admin who closes the discussion will, absent some cosmic reversal or flood of last-minute opinions, note that the consensus is that the sourcing that exists is appropriate for the standalone article to be kept. The single most important factor for editor longevity on Wikipedia is the ability to live with consensus not going their way. Of course, if you spent the 5 minutes that I did on finding sources rather than complaining about the ones identified to date, you could have demonstrated notability to your own satisfaction. The fact that you have not done so does not speak well of your participation--is it to satisfy your own biases, or to do the right thing for the encyclopedia? People who want to win at AfDs, on either side, are generally not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. So yes, I do think it appropriate for you go find some sources, or come back and say what you tried and how you've failed, if only to demonstrate your good faith in trying to make sure the AfD reaches the right outcome. After all, you've demonstrated plenty of time invested in this discussion already, and if you try and fail to find better sources, you would reinforce the validity of your deletion opinion. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your opinion on the policy is not congruent with the community's consensus in general or in specific. As far as selectively quoting things, you're overlooking the WP:NRVE part of WP:N "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable."

You are again being selective in your approach to the referenced policy. That should read, in this context: "The absence of viable citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." The central issue being debated here (in this AfD) is whether the sources that exist suffice to address the notability issue. That section you cited clearly is concerned with a different scenario entirely: viable sources existing, but just not having been added yet. Clearly not analogous to our present situation.

"The admin who closes the discussion will, absent some cosmic reversal or flood of last-minute opinions, note that the consensus is that the sourcing that exists is appropriate for the standalone article to be kept."

If you're so certain that admin will decide in a manner consistent with your interpretation of policy, why are you being so vehement about this? I never "complained" about anything, you'll note. I rebutted a single claim by another editor (and my stance was/is absolutely true, mind you). You leapt to defend yourself, explaining the context of why those sources were deficient. Which was unnecessary in that I made no assumption about your process/motive in choosing to share those sources here; I simply disagreed with Cavorre's characterization of them. I even made a response to your own that served no other purpose than to convey this sentiment as an act of civility and to clarify my position. You've responded since with a tone that has been caustic and confrontational in the extreme and now you make unfounded judgements concerning my conduct.

"The single most important factor for editor longevity on Wikipedia is the ability to live with consensus not going their way."

Thank you for the unsolicited (and in this context, patronizing and highly inappropriate) advice, but I think I'll take my ques on how best to conduct myself from elsewhere. I do not believe consensus is what is holding us up here, consequently. I've already made a point of saying that view consensus as a useful tool here for getting to the root of issues and proposing possible solutions -- one such was suggested by Masem days ago which I think has potential but which has gone largely ignored here while these side-issues (that may become moot if we put our heads together) have continued to dominate. But as for my arguments, I structure them according to policy. I've found my balance between friendliness and accordance with good editing practice, thank you.

"Of course, if you spent the 5 minutes that I did on finding sources rather than complaining about the ones identified to date, you could have demonstrated notability to your own satisfaction. The fact that you have not done so does not speak well of your participation--is it to satisfy your own biases, or to do the right thing for the encyclopedia?"

I think I'll decide how I allocate my limited time to the project. First off, how do you even know that I haven't looked and found nothing that met that criteria? Why would I share sources I knew were no good for our purposes here? You made the same assumption about the nominating editor with absolutely no basis. Regardless, the fact is that I've already contributed quite a bit of time to this discussion, gone over sources submitted previously, viewed the page content at length and followed up its links, all of which is established by my comments here. You have no place making assumptions about how else I've handled this process nor demanding what criteria I have to meet in order for my positions to be valid. My arguments stand on their own merits And now I'm being forced to engage in this utterly unproductive discussion with you, just to address your accusations.

"People who want to win at AfDs, on either side, are generally not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia."

Ok, I don't know how to be more explicit about this: I don't have a horse in this race. Do you think I was whipped with a utility belt as a child that I hate this subject matter so much? Everything I've said here has been an attempt to reconcile the issues that I see with notability. I'm even trying to help another editor to implement a "Keep" option that I think shows promise. Clearly my position here is not an arbitrary or entrenched one.

"So yes, I do think it appropriate for you go find some sources, or come back and say what you tried and how you've failed, if only to demonstrate your good faith in trying to make sure the AfD reaches the right outcome. After all, you've demonstrated plenty of time invested in this discussion already, and if you try and fail to find better sources, you would reinforce the validity of your deletion opinion"

Oh, you think it's appropriate huh? Well I don't see any community guidelines detailing that as a prerequisite for forwarding any opinion that I have given here. Regardless, I choose how I will contribute to the project and my workflow in approaching a discussion/process, thank you and I do not require, nor do I particularly want, your oversight of how I approach that task or any discussion, unless you have a concrete issue to raise that rises to the level of a breech of conduct. As such, if you have anything further to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you'd constrain yourself to responding narrowly within the scope of facts and policy; further assessments of my capabilities as an editor in general and "advice" will not be welcomed. Snow (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Sub-heading to assist editing)

Keep but Move to "Utility Belt" (presently a redirect to the generic real world belt article), as to extend the idea just beyond Batman, but covering the Batman version in one larger section (since he's the one most often associated with it). The concept of a superhero's utility belt is notable from checking gnews archives, expanding it to be generic use as a superhero tool would help with the notability. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This idea has some potential, I think. Especially since it seems possible that there are real-world instances of garments/harnesses now being referred to as utility belts. But even if only fictional examples can be supplied, I agree with Masem that additional (non-Batman) sources would improve the notability argument as well as provide justification for why the article should not be merged with Batman. Now the question is, can we find those sources? Snow (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A curious glance on gnews and gbooks shows possible sourcing, but without full access to some of the books, I can't tell. But that said, giving what I've seen, I'd give it a benefit of a doubt for development of a "Utility Belt" article. It may even be possible to do one that has the real-world and fictional/superhero one, if we are willing to trim down the current information about the Batman belt (arguably we dont need to list every single gadget that Batman ever carried on the belt, but highlight the major ones, possibly reference some of the more silly ones from the TV show, etc.) --MASEM (t) 22:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a few more people have endorsed this idea (above and bellow), I decided to do some digging. I turned up the same kind of material as you, I'm afraid; enough to establish that this approach could probably work, but no sources that are really suitable to implementing it yet. The use of "utility belt" to refer to practical real-world variants certainly exists, but the sources are all commercial in nature (could work in this narrow context, I suppose, but I'd like something better). As to other uses in fiction, it seems Spider-man, Catman, and Cyclops all have utility belts but since at least the last two examples seem more decorative than anything that has served a practical function, I'm not holding my breath on sources there. I still think the Move/generalize option is looking best though, so I'll check again when time allows. On separate note, I've just become aware of this article: Batsuit, which seems like a better home for this material than Batman, should it be decided that a merge is preferable to a keep or move. Snow (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to covering batman's utility belt under an article for REAL utility belts. I would like to note that Batman is fictional, as is his utility belt, even though both get far more coverage that real utility belts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can make the distinction between the real and unreal varieties fairly easily in the article. The thing is, there's no real functional difference between a real-life practical utility belt and Batman's, aside from what's in them. This looks to be a two-part fix to me. First, move the article to "Utility belt" and generalize it (this makes sense not only as regards the notability arguments made here, but also because the vast majority of the content on the current page has invalid sources and has to go away anyway (the non-free image is also justified under an invalid exemption and should also be nominated for deletion). This will leave only a stub's worth of content concerning the Batman iteration of the belt, plus whatever content can be justified by new (more valid) sources. This section can then be contextualized within the new article. Between the section on the new page (Utility belt) and Batsuit (which already has a sizable section on the belt), there's more than enough potential to cover Batman's utility belt to the extent that sources allow. Snow (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too am opposed to this as no evidence has been presented showing that the sources cover both generic utility belts and Batman's together. The proposition seems to require improper synthesis and so is best avoided. Note that we already have a substantial article about the police duty belt. This is the closest equivalent in the real world, as superheroes in skin-tight costumes are only to be found on the lots of movie studios, not on the real mean streets. In the real world the important issues are the composition - leather vs nylon - and the need to manage the load so that it doesn't encumber and harm the wearer. The nature of the topic and its sources are quite different and so a merger would not work. Warden (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep but move to ultility belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep OK, it's not the most important article on Wikipedia, but it has numerous, independent sources. 78.26 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is Batman notable? Extremely so. Is there enough content and sourcing to create a separate article on the belt of this highly popular fictional character? Yes. Should anyone spend more time on this article than that, instead of improving articles on actual things? No. Real issues await you urgently.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes that Batman is notable. But that does not mean that any subject to do with Batman is notable. Each has to stand or fall on it's own merits. Richard75 (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if I had known about Batsuit at the opening of this discussion, I would have argued that it was already pushing the edge of notability. We have to draw the line somewhere. Or the next step is "Bat Shark-repellent"! That being said, it may be for the better that things played out the way they did, as "Utility belt" could end up being a somewhat useful article in its own right. However, it's harder to disagree with his last point there - that we've sunk a lot of energy into fixing this article already without much to show for it. And I thought this was going to be the briefest AfD in history when I first saw it! Snow (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This relisting is improper; none of the reasons enumerated in WP:RELIST apply. I've asked the relisting editor to put this back in today's queue for an admin to close it. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done →TSU ^tp* 04:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much. Sorry that you wandered into this. :-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 24 June 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transit of bird

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

This is clearly something the writer has made up. Silhouette photography has a long tradition, but except is the specific case of astronomical transits, nobody ever calls it "transit of ...". Mogism (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP or speedy delete per G3, your choice. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whether Neologism, Madeup or Hoax is impossible to distinguish. No Sources.Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!!!, what's the difference between a bird and Venus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfock (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written, unsourced, fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No evidence presented that transit of birds have received coverage in reliable sources or have otherwise achieved notability. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I have not found any relevant information which makes the transit of birds which distinguishes it from placing one's thumb in front of eye and blocking out the sun.keystoneridin! (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP, unreferenced, clearly not notable. Also, there is a difference between a bird and Venus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Could you please explain the difference? Deepfock (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't know the difference between a bird and Venus... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Venus transits are historically of great scientific importance" (from Transit of Venus). I'm not aware of bird transits having the same importance in measuring the scale of the solar system. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about topic that is of no importance, unlike Transit of Venus.Autarch (talk) 22:29, 18 June 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 - WP:SNOW, but also WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-style table football

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

Seems like WP:MADEUP, unless someone can verify otherwise. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no coverage, no nothing. WP:MADEUP all the way. Should really be speedied. DarkAudit (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has sent me a message saying I wrote this page when I never did anything like that. It might be someone using my account or a hack. I'm very sorry for any inconvinience caused. Thank you 李博杰 for pointing it out.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax per WP:CSD G3 - no hits whatsoever on Google except for Wikipedia itself and mirrors CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:54, 17 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keyscript

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

Contested PROD. Article about a writing system that does not appear to be notable. Please see Talk:Keyscript for the author's argumentation in favour of the article being kept, as well as a list of links to websites where Keyscript is mentioned. Unfortunately, none of the sites is a reliable source (Best of the Web doesn't qualify I'm afraid), and only one of them ([12]) has more than a trivial mention of Keyscript, so the basic notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable independent sources (see WP:GNG) is not met. There is also no actual claim of notability per Wikipedia's definition in the article or in the reasoning on the talk page. That a number of people around the world have bought a product doesn't make the product notable. bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article appears to be the inventor of the scheme. —Tamfang (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following webpage has a non-trivial reference to Keyscript:

https://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/2f25e97ac9a9d9b2/5040f48a5040d120?show_docid=5040f48a5040d120&hl=pl & Go to Rustom Mody’s contribution

Cassyjanek (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Wasn't that already on your list of links?) That's corroborative evidence that it exists, but not everything mentioned in ephemeral discussions is "notable". —Tamfang (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the article's talk page, but was added there after this AfD was created, so I asked her to copy it here. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is one person in a ~~Usenet News~~ Google Groups thread who talks about the system. ~~Usenet~~ Google Groups is a self-published source, not a reliable source, and the discussion is not particularly extensive in any case. As Tamfang says, it shows that the system exists (which was never in doubt :-) ) but not that it's notable. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. When I searched for sourcing, any mention of Keyscript in reliable sources turned out to be about something else. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 22 June 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 Ding Hui Temple. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 14:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rugao Dinghui Temple

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

Content fork of Ding Hui Temple. All information is already included there. Kevinsam (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, a fork indeed, written in an inappropriate style.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there is no sourced content worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 22 June 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Goldnadel

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

Does not meet notability requirements Slasher-fun (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. president of one of the major airport in the world. A lot, really a lot of independant and secondary sources. Awarded. Article submit by AfC that mean has been reviewed before accepted. Also created only one day before, not a lot of time to be improved. 90.84.144.249 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The airport may be notable, but its president is not. A lot of sources... saying he has been appointed president of CDG. 100,000 people in France are "awarded" the Légion d'Honneur, I'm glad we don't have an article about every one of them. AfC does not always mean the article is 100% within WP guidelines. The point here is not about improving the content of the article, it's about the notability of the subject. Slasher-fun (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I totally agree by what is mentioned above. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - at least two of the sources [13] [14] appear to be reliable, independent news sources, so I'm willing to believe the subject meets the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. However, if someone with better French comprehension can tell me differently, I might change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources, one economical website and one travel website, saying he has been appointed as the director of Paris-CDG airport. Not sure that it makes him especially "notable". Slasher-fun (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first source comes from the web site of Les Échos, a major French economical newspaper. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At a glance, it meets WP:BASIC. Would be easier to make a more informed opinion with english sources, but that's purely a nice-to-have. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IP 90 sums it up perfectly for me. Also, thank you for not notifying me of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article refers to his connection to French aviation and appears to be reliably sourced. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ip 90 and sources. a search of google.fr looks like it produces good sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:27, 18 June 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. The discussion post-paring down of the article clearly leans toward "keep" (even if not, there would be no consensus to delete). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man

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

This article is entirely a dump of a single journal article. Every single statement is drawn from that article, including the author's opinion which is here stated as fact. There appears to be no significant attention to the subject from other reliable sources. The only thing that could taken from other sources would be a SYNTHy list of sources using the story. No other reliable source has discussed the meta-issue of the story, as far as I know. Zero^talk 10:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comments posted when this article was nominated for deletion, shortly after I wrote the article, are no longer valid. Sources have been added, the article has been rewritten for neutrality, and a assessment of the article ( the "meta-issue") by a major academic authority on the Middle East added.WmTyndale (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, no additional sources that discuss the quotation have been added. Only some examples of sources that use the quotation have been added. This failure to find any further sources simply proves the case for deletion. Zero^talk 13:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia should have an article on Miss Karmi's The Bride Is Beautiful, into which the material from this article can then be merged.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sentence is the title of a newly released book about the history of zionism (in swedish): [15]. The book is critical of zionism, according to book reviews. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC documentary Birth of Israel also references it here, at around 5:50–6:30. I'm starting to lean toward keeping the article but rewriting it to be strictly about the purported 1897 meeting and the rabbis' survey of Palestine. The story and the quote derived from it are notable.—Biosketch (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anti-Zionism, perhaps with the Anti-Zionist conspiracy theories section. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google the phrase and you will see that it is in widespread use. A book in English and, apparently, one in Swedish have taken this phrase as their title. Many other books have echoed the phrase, not as a metaphor, but as a citation of a cable that was actually sent. Now, the author of an article in an academic journal asserts that the phrase is a fabrication and supports his assertion by contacting several of the better known authors who have used it, none of whom can supply him with a reliable source - or any source at all that goes back before 1996 for a phrase that was supposedly used in the 1890's. The 1966 citation is from a book by a journalist who does not give a source, merely asserting that it was widely used. I have added a See also section listing several similar articles. This looks notable to me, albeit more sources can and should be added.WmTyndale (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is very similar to Azzam Pasha quotation, which, interestingly, was created by the same editor who wants to delete this article. This quote comes up in various places, and there's really no reason to delete the article. It is reliably sourced and quite notable. The quote itself receives over 18,000 hits on google. Not to mention that the article was created yesterday, so some time to improve it would be nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Azaam article is entirely different. It is based on multiple articles that discuss the quotation and don't merely repeat it. It is also a complete story in the sense that the real source of the quotation has been found and discussed in reliable sources. In this present case no original source has been found. All that is reported is that a few prominent users of the quotation can't identify a primary source for it, and the author (Afsai) can't find anything earlier than a 1996 book. That book's author is still alive, but Afsai doesn't even mention having asked him. Zero^talk 23:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm missing something, but when you wrote the Azzam article, you had exactly two sources discussing the issue with the quote. One journal article by Barnett and Karsh, and one Haaretz supplement article by Segev. This article isn't that far behind it would seem. I don't see how the fact the original quote wasn't found (if it even exists) is relevant to whether there should be an article or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even two would be better than one as here, but no there were four sources that actually discussed the veracity of the quotation in addition to the original source of the quotation. That makes five sources which were not just examples of places where the quotation was used. In this case there is exactly one source that discusses the veracity of the quotation. As I said, every single word in the article comes from the same source. There is no rule against it, but it is generally regarded as a Bad Idea; also look for "Isolated studies" at WP:RS. I have no objection in principle to an article on this quotation, but where are the sources? Zero^talk 09:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : who is Shai Afsai ? I hope not just a journalist from Jerusalem Post [16] ? If so, we cannot have an article with so few relevance given it is only based an analysis from this person. 81.247.173.155 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The journal identifies him only as "Independent Scholar", which means that he has no university affiliation. I guess he is the same as the journalist of that name who has published in various places, but I don't know that for sure. Zero^talk 01:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-> Delete : wikipedia is not there to create the notoriety of information ; notoriety must come first. Maybe the article is interesting but the controversy is not notorious enough. 81.247.83.224 (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason you're not logging into Wikipedia with your registered account, preferring instead to hop from one IP to the next? You wouldn't by any chance be trying to evade scrutiny now, would you.—Biosketch (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is forbidden to edit wikipedia under IP and it is not forbidden to argue and comment in discussions. On the other side, wikipedia 4th pillar (no less) recquires civility and one of the rules requires WP:AGF.

My feeling from your comment is that you cannot disagree with what I wrote so you attack ad hominem. 81.247.83.224 (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This story is in wide circulation. It is interesting to learn where it came form, looks like some Egyptian made it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaldorfNaples (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the source provides no evidence whatever that the Egyptian in question invented the story. Zero^talk 01:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I have a nose for dubious claims. Two sources earlier than the Egyptian book have been found, proving Afsai's thesis is mistaken. Details in due course. Zero^talk 16:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what your new sources say, they wouldn't necessarily prove Afsai's thesis is mistaken (unless one of them is the original cable, of course). Two earlier sources repeating the claim without reference don't really prove it's true, and they certainly don't disprove the fact Shalim and Karmi (among others) used it without knowing where it came from. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afsai calls it "fake" and strongly suggests that Mohammed Heikal invented it in his 1996 book. The latter claim is certainly false since I found it (with different details) published in 1977. I don't know if the story is based on some real event, but Afsai doesn't either. The very most we should write in Wikipedia is that Afsai alleged it is fake. The argument that the story must be false as something like that couldn't have happened is rubbish, as many similar things and even much stronger things are well documented. Zero^talk 02:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the argument that the story must be fake is not correct. It may or may not be fake. On the other hand, the very least we should write in Wikipedia is that Shalaim and Karmi acknowledged they used it without knowing its source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karmi got it from Shlaim, and Shlaim got it from Heikal. So it isn't true that they didn't have a source, though they didn't have a primary source and both acknowledge it would have been better if they did. As noted above, tons of authors of all shades have mentioned this story without giving a primary source, so why single out Karmi and Shlaim? In particular, WP:BLP requires us to avoid writing anything that could be read like an accusation of dishonesty or academic misconduct, as no evidence of that whatever is available and Afsai doesn't even say that (except maybe in the case of Heikal). Zero^talk 04:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should re-read exactly what Karmi and Shlaim told Afsai. Also, BLP is not a shield against criticism. We can certainly quote Afsai and any response he got and not run afoul of BLP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did re-read it and it is like I said. See page 50. Zero^talk 05:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article more carefully, then. Afsai doesn't call the "bride is beautiful" story "fake" anywhere. Why misrepresent his argument? As NMMNG rightly points out, the argument is (a) that Shlaim and Karmi borrowed the story from Heikal and (b) that the story's gone through various mutations in its history without anyone having bothered to research what the original version was like – which is at best sloppy scholarship or at worst knowingly biased historiography. That argument is altogether sound and valuable for its insight into Shlaim's and Karmi's methodology.—Biosketch (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you know you are right, Afsai doesn't call it "fake" at all! Only "fabricated" (three times) and "invented" (twice). And what's a few "non-facts" and "spurious"es and "fiction"s between friends? And why does it seem like the only argument being presented here for putting this stuff on Wikipedia is that it is nice for bashing Karmi and Shlaim? Zero^talk 11:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for conceding that point. The fact is that there are times when the story is reported with rabbis, other times with unspecified delegates; sometimes with Herzl, other times without. These inconsistencies can reasonably lead a person to conclude that the various versions of the "bride is beautiful" story are distortions or incarnations of a myth. Fabrications, fictions – those terms aren't uncalled for, if ultimately subjective, which is still fine since in the BLPs the source is being incorporated with attribution. As to the claim of "bashing" Shlaim and Karmi, that sounds like a straw man: no one has tried to use the source to call Shlaim or Karmi incompetent scholars. All that's being said is that they adopted a story they came across as factual without having done any research into it themselves – one even using it as the title of her book. The reader is left to draw his own conclusions as to the credibility these individuals' histories. Nothing wrong with that; it's what we're supposed to be doing.—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology for claiming that I misrepresented Afsai. Zero^talk 12:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that your excitement in having discovered two sources earlier than Heikal led you to misquote Afsai but that it was a careless error conceivably made in good faith.—Biosketch (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Not. Zero^talk 12:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Glad we agree then.—Biosketch (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So now we have useless and predictable commentary from the Facebook page of a Shlaim enemy. What's next? Still no sources that actually address the subject of the article? Zero^talk 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that "Shlaim enemy" an expert in the field? He's talking directly about the topic of the article, and one of its sources. What's the problem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did no research on it whatever and doesn't even claim to have. When we use a source in Wikipedia, do we add other people praising the source without adding anything at all? Come on, apply some standards. Zero^talk 03:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with the point you're making, we do indeed add people praising sources without doing any research or adding anything. A simple and obvious example is book reviews (which often aren't even done by experts) which are included left and right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews are regularly cited in articles about books, that is correct. But then the book itself is the article topic. This article does not claim to be an article about Afsai's paper, but only to be using Afsai as a source. Besides that, I don't think we should be copying comments off peoples' Facebook pages except in exceptional circumstances, it can only have the effect of lowering standards. Zero^talk 03:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily show you book reviews being cited in articles about history. As for lowering standards, as long as wikipedia uses newspapers as reliable sources, the standards are quite low to begin with. But this is all beside the point. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the occasion to agree (the evidence) that NO newspaper or book review should be used (if they don't fit what is stated in reliable secondary sources) and even if so, they should be replaced when possible. If everybody would agree (and would convince 'friends' of that) that would be good for the content, for the quality of articles and to prevent edit wars. I can agree comparing wp:rs book against wp:rs book but that is tiring to have to discuss when a newspaper article or a book from the seventies is contradicted by recent scholars. What is your mind ? 91.180.65.140 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

91.180.65.140 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Revisiting this conversation I am frankly puzzled by all the Sturm und Drang. This is a widely cited quotation. An academic article has appeared by an author who asserts that he can find no use of the phrase in a good-faith search during the century after it was allegedly first used, and that major authors who have cited the phrase cannot find a source for it earlier than the 1990's. It is therefore useful for everyone to be able to see what is known and not known about this apparently fabricated quotation.WmTyndale (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the quotation is used in many places, it is only discussed as a subject in itself in a single source. A single source is not enough as "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view". Thus, the quotation as an article topic has not yet "gained sufficiently significant attention" and should be deleted per WP:N. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've decided, despite initial reservations, to argue it be deleted. My reasons are, those working the page seem unfamiliar with wiki policy, and do not respond to specific requests for information. That is, the original drafter of the page, and those who have commented in support on the article's talk page, are unresponsive to numerous, simple, policy-based requests to supply citations from the article to support the way this one article's thesis is presented as a fact. As Zero and Federico note, it goes against policy to create an article, which is in fact a polemic, from one source. Make a copy of it, and bring it back when more sources are available, which surely will be the case in a few months when scholars respond to Afsai's thesis. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 15 June 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 08:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is now such a famous phrase that it belongs here. There is so far only one RS discussing whether or not the anecdote accompanying the phrase is true, but there are multiple that discuss the implications of the phrase (and even a book that takes it for its title). Here, for example, Le Jeudi unpacks the phrase, without questioning its truth. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not about a phrase. It is about Afsai and his book. The two added citations to O'Rourke's and LeBor's books don't help much as the material in the WP article is so minimal as to illuminate nothing about the phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an argument for improving the article, surely, rather than for deleting it? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article topic is notable since it is highly debated historical fact with significant coverage in reliable sources. Some writers who covered this topic include Ghada Karmi - "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine", Shai Afsai, Muḥammad Ḥasanayn Haykal - "Secret channels: the inside story of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations" (1996), and there are plenty more. There is significant academic interest in whether this is a true or fabricated quote.Marokwitz (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be precise. It is not a 'highly debated historical fact'. It is a meme, that only one writer so far has 'debated'.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG: We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement. This article not only relies on a single source, it in effect represent[s] only one author's point of view as per the above quote, thus failing GNG on both counts. If we had an article on every random academic paper that appeared in some journal somewhere, we would not have an encyclopedia but a database of useless information. The lack of notability of this topic is further underlined by the fact that the article is practically an orphan, with only a handful of links (added to several other pages by the author of this article that arguably violate both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP). What this topic needs is multiple quality sources establishing notability, right now even the quote itself appears in only a handful of links on Google Scholar, let alone any substantial discussion about it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. (listed on 20:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. (listed on 21:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP. If there were multiple, reliable sources, or even a sufficient reason by way of links, I'd keep this essay and fix it into an article. But it's lacking even basic sourcing and I have no idea how to fix it. Cf. Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I think the stubification and sourcing by Andreas Philopater has worked to fix what I thought was unfixable. Change to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and interesting subject as attested by the multiple reliable sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like problematic sourcing and insufficient third party references in reliable sources to establish notability, per WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have five books, two by recognized scholars and one by a famous writer, two newspaper articles from the quality press, and an article from a scholarly journal. These are in English, French, and Swedish. That's not so bad going for third-party reliable sources. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to books on Afsai's thesis? We need books that cite Afsai's thesis, not books Afsai's thesis cites. Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the phrase, not about Afsai's thesis. I have never before seen it suggested that we need to cite tertiary sources that cite a secondary source in order to use the secondary source in an article not about the secondary source itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I hadn't followed your edits on the page. It is now a different article. If that is the shape we're voting on, I'd change to keep, only I wonder if it passes as a page to be kept, whether the original version more or less, which is written wholly from Afsai's article, will be restored bit by bit. That would make a mockery of the deletion/(non-delete process. So I'd like to know how much that article can, from its pared form, be reshaped out by the exclusive use of Afsai's article's details.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a question that goes well beyond anything I can tell you. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In synth. This was proposed for deletion because it plainly violated several key guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:ONESOURCE,WP:UNDUE and,WP:BLP), for example. You completely rewrote it, and these problems are addressed. So it can be approved. But, in lieu of clear indications about the original draft's nature, approval can just mean the page was retained, so that the old editors can then repatch it with all of the non-policy compliant material which brought the original objection. That would make this process farcical.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've said from the outset the phrase deserves an article, but it is premature since we have only 1 source commenting on it from a meta-perspective, as opposed to numerous sources which just cite it (mindlessly). If retention of the phrase article means it can serve as a coatrack for Afsai's rather careless opinions then these deletion processes would look like a charade.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Andreas has done an excellent job of addressing the massively WP:UNDUE coverage in the original article. However, since he has only added one additional source that apparently discusses the topic, and the substantiality of that discussion is unclear, I'm still not persuaded a standalone article on this topic is justified. Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. This AfD has now been going on so long that it doesn't even show up among "Old AfDs" on the AfD page. Should it not be either closed as no consensus or relisted to generate consensus? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Hadn't noticed that it had been relisted. Sorry. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:00, 23 June 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. Consensus is to Keep - but monitor for BLP violations (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kary Arora

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

Procedural nomination based on an OTRS request. The subject has identified privacy concerns with the article and, given their borderline notability, they would like to have the article deleted. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed some of the earlier versions of the article as well and notability is borderline at best. EEng (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's music notability guideline states that the following grants notability: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Based on the current references, Kary Arora clearly meets that standard, since the three references are independent sources (major Indian newspapers), and their coverage of her background and performance is substantial. NJ Wine (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources in the article are puff pieces consisting largely of quotations from the subject and narrative material clearly supplied by the subject. ~~Published within a month of one another, they are~~ -- typical courtesy coverage of a new young artist. Statements like "rated one of the top DJs" are meaningless when there's no indication of by whom. EEng (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, the three article were published in three different years -- 2004, 2005, and 2012. I think you may have been looking at the retrieved dates, not the publication dates. Additionally I found a new article about her from 2000 where she has an interview with a financial newspaper. She is clearly notable. NJ Wine (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was looking at the retrieval dates, must... get... more... sleep. This negates my unimportant idea that there was a recent publicity campaign, but the rest of my comments still apply. This coverage is completely superficial. Notability-supporting references need to be independent of the subject; in particular, interviews cannot be independent and so cannot count towards notability. Of the three references in the article and the one you give above, all are either interviews or four-paragraph puff pieces. All are obviously just rehashes of material supplied by the subject -- nothing critical or from third parties whatsover. The claim that, "For two years, she was ranked among Delhi's `Top Five DJs'" -- without bothering to mention who did the ranking -- only makes it clear how meaningless all this hype is. EEng (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC:

Yadav, Shivangi (5 January 2004). "We will, we will rock you". The Times of India.
Prince Frederick (21 March 2005). "Carry on, Kary". The Hindu.
Mahaldar, Puja Raina (26 January 2012). "Six women who know how to get the party started". India Today.

Simply comply with the individual's privacy requests (if any have been stated) at WP:OTRS, whatever they may be (e.g. omit birthdate, if that's been requested, etc.) Outright deletion doesn't make sense, because publicly-known figures cannot request that mass media stop reporting about them with an expectation that this would actually occur; why should Wikipedia be any different? Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are the same three sources I discussed above. Can you respond to my claim that they are inadquate? EEng (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::The request is to have the article removed completed, which is why it was nominated for deletion. Given that your first reference is from 8 years ago, the second is from 6 years ago and the third is a minor profile mentioning her "biggest gig" was a private party over three years ago, it's not an enormous leap to consider that some editors may conclude that the subject's request to have their article removed overrides a minor blip on the notability screen. WP:N is only a guideline after all and WP:IAR exists for a reason. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely forgotten that the subject herself has requested deketion, for apparently understandable reasons. Of course, we don't delete articles just because the subject wants us to. Some time back a Pakistani general demanded deletion because he disliked seeing the truth about himself laid out in print. That ended in keep, of course. But this is a far cry from that situation. EEng (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this article about her from 12 years ago. There are multiple non-trivial articles about her from independent sources, so she is notable. I'm sympathetic to a privacy request when someone is thrust into the spotlight against their will (e.g., a crime victim), However, Kary Arora chose to be a public figure, and I don't see the article, at least as currently written, as being that invasive of her privacy. NJ Wine (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets notability requirements over a period of years. While we should be sensitive to BLP concerns, the current article has a NPOV and does not appear to have negative information. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Indore

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

The list in question does not have Notability and is in violation of WP:NOTDIR Harsh ^{Mujhse baat kijiye}(Talk)(Contribs) 07:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh ^{Mujhse baat kijiye}(Talk)(Contribs) 07:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - lists of educational institutions are both normal and helpful, and this looks more useful than many such lists. Most of the institutions are notable so better linking is needed but that is an editorial matter. Such lists also form a useful repository for nn establishments such as elementary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being from Indore, I can with confidence say that most schools mentioned would not pass national standards leave alone international ones. That is the reason I nominated it for deletion. If these not notable names were to be removed, the list would come down to ~10 names across all categories. --Harsh ^{Mujhse baat kijiye}(Talk)(Contribs) 06:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Degree-awarding institutions and senior high schools are generally considered notable. If some institutions are not notable, then this page would be a convenient repository for information about them rather than creating perma-stubs. This is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Criterion of notability of stand-alone article and that of inclusion in a list are different. The "List of X" just requires it's entries to be "X". And the topic "List of education institutes in a major city" is itself notable. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. This sort of article is almost always kept. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 18 June 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. I'm sorry Jaydepps but the delete !voters make the stronger argument here. To meet criterion 11 of WP:BAND they have to be added to the rotation of a "major radio or music television network" not just a few stations. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SKINMASK

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for bands or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to meet criteria #11 as their song Day After Day is in rotation nationally by several notable rock stations including 99x and Rock 108. It is currently ranked 24 in Rock 108's top 40. On top of the radio attention it is frequently played on the Music Choice Rock channel which qualifies as "music television network". -Jaydepps (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs major rework, but if it meets criteria #11 then it should stay. Needs major overhaul of sources, context and grammar. Probably a lot more sources out there, but radio play is one of those things which don't translate into text well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band does not pass #11. 99x and Rock 108 are single stations, not networks and they are not national. The charts for Rock 108 (which should not be used (WP:BADCHARTS)) suggest local rotation there but claim of 99x rotation is not verified. Band lacks coverage and does not meet any of WP:BAND. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:41, 4 June 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, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good luck with their career. Getting on the rotation of a coupe of radio stations is good, but a couple of stations does not constitute a major network. No prejudice to recreation in the future if the meet notability then. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 22 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudburst (Image Comics)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Only cited source is a personal website. Google News Search comes up with a couple of articles in Comic Book Resources, one of which is a review, and other is a short mention. Any material could easily be covered in one or both of the main authors' articles. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 3 June 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, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, no indication of notability. I couldn't even find the review Bbb23 mentioned. Huon (talk) 15:13, 16 June 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 - filelake shoe  09:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spacedaily.com

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

Although I see this website used as citations in Google Books and as citations in many Wikipedia articles, this is non-notable. This may be a reliable source, but not all reliable sources are notable. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 June 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, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WEB and GNG. I can see why a previous speedy nomination could have been declined, but can't see how it's possible to keep in an AFD, based on a reasonable search for sources. A search for information on the founder doesn't seem to help. This page has appeared in mainspace for seven years with zero sources. BusterD (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If its a WP:RS in Google Books, maybe its better to keep it just as a reference for amateurs here, nothing more, even if if its not very notable in the mass media. Its been here since 2005 anyway and scientists use it for their work. --Artene50 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason to keep, nor is the fact it's been here a WP:LONGTIME. The article is unreferenced, and no references can be found that indicate notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sometimes blind allegiance to the GNG/N are not always in our best interest and instinctively I'm minded that we should keep this but I'm struggling to articulate a policy based reason to do so... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's always WP:IAR, but even if they're not GNG quality some references are needed per WP:V... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 19 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. I was tempted to close as a "redirect" (which can still be done as an editorial decision) but MelanieN has a point. There should be some sources that link the two Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kavalsky

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

People do have this surname, but there is nothing notable about it. SL93 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the issue here. How about Kowalski? Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, how about WP:N? That article is acceptable because it disambiguates notable people with that surname. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Kowalski, per precedent of several other variations of names p b p 04:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Kowalski, as it is recognized as a variant of this name. Grillo7 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem is that the article says possibly which is itself unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 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, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing sourced in the article, thus we have no evidence that 1) this is actually a variant of Kowalski and 2) this surname is common enough to require an article or redirect. We do not appear to have any Wikipedia articles about anyone of this name (unlike the Kowalskis who are numerous). If an article is going to be redirected, it should at least be mentioned at the target page, but I can find no mention of the name Kavalsky (or any individuals named Kavalsky) at the page Kowalski. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 23 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What If? (essays)

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

Is not notable under the Wikipedia:Notability (books) guidlines, i.e. not notable, no awards, no third party sources, etc. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related books and not notable either for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:37, 2 June 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, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least for the first volume as it has received coverage; See [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. As for the others, I haven't had a chance to look but I would suspect that they also meet notability, but in any event, with the first volume established, merge would always be an option. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This book is clearly notable. There are plenty of third-party sources (did you even look?). I have added several reviews to the article; there are many other reviews out there behind paywalls. I have not yet looked at the two sequels but I suspect they are notable too. In any case they should be considered individually, not lumped in with this book, so my !vote on them is "keep" as well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have now added reviews to the sequel articles as well. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 23 June 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 Connor Fogel. A third relist is unnecessary A redirect to the founder seems eminently reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redfields Community Choir

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

Community choir based in Ystrad, Wales. It has a notability tag since 15 days and is still valid. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found two reliable sources mentioning the choir: [22] (Wales Online, currently present in the article) and [23] (a paragraph in an article published by The Independent). I don't think it is enough for a stand alone article, but I think redirect to Connor Fogel, the founder of the choir, could be a sensible solution. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Connor Fogel. Just what I was going to suggest. The choir does not appear to be notable but its founder does appear to be. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 2 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 03:49, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is WP:TOOSOON thus delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metatextbook of Medicine

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

A "Metatextbook" in development. There is one source (in the Deutsche Ärzteblatt) in a respected journal (cited as "recension" an incorrect translation of the German "Rezension", meaning "review"), but strangely enough, this review is written by the same person who established this "Metatextbook". In the absence of any independent sources, this fails WP:GNG, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume is right in his understandings of the way my product is connected to the scientific publication systems. My resource is not founded by any third party or affiliated with a research organization and so on. It is not PUBLISHED-AND-PERISHED but it is improvingly developed with enthusiasm or one might say, something like agape. The publication model could not be that of a primary publication of a scientific resource (It had gone to BMC Med Res Methodol in my opinion at a further-developed stage), it got a secondary literature-type Publication of a resource description like a Book, a synergistic description of an item by the original promoter and the journals editorial team. Without peer review, this is a quite fast-track publication, which of course gives no impact factor counts, which are of no relevance to a practicing physician like me. The Publication in DÄ hasnt been retracted, so it is the valid literature description of this resource. DÄ has 400.000 readers in germany, and all physicians receive it, so its the best way to tell my peers what i have created. There is nothing 'strangely enough' if someone sets his or her real name under all his statements, there is no misconduct, no copied texts, no fraud, no companies opinion in behind, only the one stupid actor who did the programming, searching selecting indexing - and promotion of an essetially free and worthwhile resource. Since anybody has made the experience that publishing wikipedia articles has something in common with performing a heavy cognitive behaviour autotherapy session as breivig did, no one would take over the part of describing a resource which is cited less than 50 times - or enhancing his statements by obvious facts which are not worth publishing at 1500 USD - his work would be erased immediately. The german wikipedia is a hopeless heaven, maybe, because it is our common character to cut every grasshalm in our garden to exactly the same length and to enhance the overall appearance by assembling an ensemble of GartenzwerGartenzwerge, the latter watching out the scene like suricats (simply to tell any possible offender: the owner has no style appeal, burglary is not worth effort). It is a hypothesis to check out whether other populations feel something like editorial enthusiasm or if they are simply the judge actors in the of structure-vs.-progress trial. last, my transliteration of german "Rezension" was consistent with this, Webtranslator, sure i didnt check but did it from a spontaneous feeling of correctness. Think the right genre of the publication is that of a 'critique'. If Guillaume transliterates to review, he doenst even know how a systematic review on similar resources could be written under a 500 words limit ? --Ossip Groth (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the above or its relevance to the present discussion, so I just would like to note that 1/ Nobody accused you or anybody else of misconduct or fraud, or anything else untoward and 2/ I am baffled why you link my userid to Günter Guillaume (not a compliment, in my eyes, given that this guy by his betrayal brought down the much admired Willy Brandt). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- anybody is free to choose his nick, these are my peers. --Ossip Groth (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had linked to Guillaume, that could be construed as innocent, but by linking explicitly to one specific person called Guillaume, you're apparently implying something and I'm not sure I like what I think you are saying. Please read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, which are important policies here on the English WP (and there's bound to be something similar on the German WP, too). Please be aware that further personal attacks will be reported to WP:ANI. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- might be this one Guillaume_Apollinaire to be taken as a better example. Your criticism was anything but nice, so imagine, what would this man do ? --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep I'm not aware of any other index to open access scientific review articles, tough they are of course included in any index to open access articles. As conventional publication, ISI used to publish a separate index of scientific reviews, made by separating out the review articles from Web of Science. The ability to search online by adding the keyword "review" more or less removed the usefulness for conventionally prepared indexes. But the keyword is not added to open access indexes with any reliability, so such an index might be quite valuable. I would , however, like some better third party evidence of its actual importance. Might I suggest the best way to establish this topic might be to first write an article on it for the German Wikipedia -- I'd have no hesitation about including it here if they find it notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- german article just finished --Ossip Groth (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 2 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 03:52, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, possibly a matter of WP:TOOSOON. This is a project under development, and it does not appear to have attracted any notice by independent third parties as required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything found at Google is self-referential, not independent. Nothing at all found at Google News Archive except this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't see what the presence or absence of an article in the German Wikipedia (especially one recently created by the author of the project, and lacking any independent sources) has to do with it. We need to evaluate this subject by the criterion of notability, and it currently fails that criterion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 20 June 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 No prejuice against immediate relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2419 Record Label

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

Unremarkable record label. Article is not supported by any first- of third-party sources. Also, it is written as an advertisement, directly pasted from the label's website. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has a first-party external link. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BEFORE. The issue at AfD is not whether the article currently has appropriate sources: it's whether appropriate sources actually exist. If you feel the article is a blatant copyright violation, nominate it for speedy deletion. Dricherby (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence of any notable artists who use this label. Dew Kane (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 2 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 03:53, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close no compelling arguement for deletion has been presented, despite constant relisting. Lugnuts (talk) 09:27, 16 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orion's Belt (game)

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

The project created by 2 Portuguese students. No notability established, no independent sources. Comments ? AFAIR Pardus (browser game) was more recognizable than this game. Sir Lothar (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on both the the article's current references, and an Internet search that I did, this article fails to meet Wikipedia's Internet notability guideline because there are no independent sources that discuss this topic. NJ Wine (talk) 01:58, 2 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I too did a search looking for a reliable, independent source. Unfortunately I found nothing that would appear usable. None of the links listed really appear to quite satisfy WP:GNG. The closest is perhaps the MyGames interview. But that site isn't checkmarked on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Checklist. Clearly the authors have been trying to promote this game, but it hasn't gained much if any traction in the press. Regrettably, at this point I can't support a keep. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources with significant coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 21:33, 17 June 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 Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Herman

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

Can not find any substantial coverage of the subject. Seems to be a lack of coverage in reliable independent sources, and coverage in reliable sources seems to be limited to very short press releases. Ridernyc (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find the necessary significant independent coverage about her. In lieu of deletion, the article could be redirected to Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 5 June 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, Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 9 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:52, 16 June 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Trowbridge

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

Lacking in notability Tiptoety ^talk 06:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionp From the article: "professor of history and Director of the African and African American Studies program at Marshall University " So why is he lacking in notability? DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been more clear. This AFD is the result of an email to OTRS from the subject stating he does not feel he is notable enough to have an entry and would like it taken down. Tiptoety ^talk 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found on GS, GB or JSTOR so accede to ORTS request. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This is David Trowbride-I am not sure that this entry serves a useful purpose and I have requested that this page be deleted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.70.9 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Defensible on WP:PROF grounds, but since original subject requests deletion and it's not a slam-dunk, I believe in granting the request. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Mattson

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

The inventor of something for a chain saw and lawn mower. References are just the patents. Only refs that I can find are patent reports. No reliable, independent refs to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any references either. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant mention of this guy in even two reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 19 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deloitte F.C.

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

This is a non-notable Sunday League club (see here). Apart from this and related links, the only google hits are to wiki mirrors - therefore fails WP:GNG. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only under the rarest of circumstances would a Sunday League club be deemed notable and I can't see that that is the case here.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the club notability guidelines as it hasn't played in the FA Cup or in the top 10 levels of the English league system (I assume the channel island league falls in the english league system.)Seasider91 (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability through WP:GNG and fails WP:FOOTY rule of thumb on English football club notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As someone who lives in Guernsey and knows the football scene well I can confirm that there is nothing special about this club. Hardly known in the island at all.(Darrylgsy (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete per nom, user:ChrisTheDude and user:Seasider91. Not notable under general or special guidelines. - UnbelievableError (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — article fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football guidelines. Regards, ⇒T A P 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amateur club, fails WP:GNG and haven't played at a notable level. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus is to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people reported in the press to be billionaires

AfDs for this article:

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

The contents of this article do not demonstrate the article's scope or purpose. Per Wikipedia's rules, everything must be reported in the press (of some sort), so the title does not make sense to me. By the intro sentence it seems to be a list of people whose billionaire status is only speculative and unconfirmed, which also warrants the article's deletion, and its brevity (and unclear inclusion criteria) does not provide any usefulness for the article. There are many other billionaire-related lists with similar material, but I do not see the possibility for a merge. Reywas92^Talk 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wording of the title apparently indicates they are people reported to be billionaires, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) in one of the standard lists. I think thats a category that is reasonable and sufficiently defined, though necessarily restricted to those whom we have identified. In this case it can even includes those about which we presently have no articles, because such a report from a RS would normally indicate notability . I wouldn't want to keep this if it were a specification generally thought to be derogative. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they're reported to be billionaires, then, as far as we're concerned, they are, and there's seemingly a billion lists for that already. If they're only suspected of being such, it's not something that the media covers except as an occasional aside, as it's not an attention grabber. Heck, even the lower echelons of known billionaires don't receive much notice as a group, just the top 100 or 400 or whatever. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was moved to the present title by a now-retired editor late last year, from List of non-Forbes billionaires, which was twice discussed at AFD. I've added links for those discussions above. The distinction appears to have been because all (?) of the other billionaire lists, including those by country, appear to rely on Forbes exclusively as an authoritative source (why, I do not yet understand). Often if an article title seems oddly specific, it has some kind of complicated history like that. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a move back to that name, then (Forbes is part of the press and they report their list!), but I still see little purpose for this non-comprehensive article. It seems the other list ought to be reorganized as well so not to rely solely on Forbes. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Currently List of billionaires redirects to Forbes list of billionaires (2011). List of members of the Forbes 400 (2010) exists; List of American billionaires does not. Then we have Forbes list of Indian billionaires, but List of Indonesians by net worth, though even though "Forbes" is not in the Indonesian list title, it still only relies on Forbes. So while my first inclination is to agree with you, I suggest caution until we figure out why all of this is set up as it is, and hear from someone who may support it. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic content fork. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A discriminate list that currently has each entry verified with one or more inline citations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, each entry is notable...most billionaires already have articles on Wikipedia. But is the topic generally notable? Verifying that "Person X is reportedly a billionaire" makes Person X notable; it doesn't make the list notable p b p 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You're either a billionaire or you ain't. If you're a billionaire, you belong on the billionaires list. If you're not, you being reported as such is erroneous. Remove both people who are billionaires and people who aren't, and you've got an empty list p b p 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as PBP says, either you are or you aren't; "reported in the press to be..." is classic WP:WEASEL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this list will ever meet WP:NOR and it's purely speculative in nature which Wikipedia isn't for. Secret ^account 18:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have Forbes's List of billionaires and its derivations to properly cover the topic. —Hahc 21 00:28, 24 June 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) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City of Peace

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

This is a disambiguation based on original research; the inclusion criteria are simply the author's subjective opinion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There is nothing subjective about a dab named City of Peace that links to articles about cities historically dubbed City of Peace, with citations to back that up. Words related to the meaning "subjective" are becoming more commonly misused in deletion nominations. Making a nomination without some factual evidence or policy on which to base the assertion that the article is faulty has, sadly, been the norm for years, even though it is prohibited by WP:BEFORE and its requirement of checking WP:DEL#REASON (well, all of DEL, really). Anarchangel (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only two of the six entries on the list link to articles containing citations for the use of the label "City of Peace". I seem to be saying this more and more, but would it be too much to ask to assume a little good faith and discuss the matter at hand rather than attacking the nomination/supposed motives of the nominator? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence one: Yes, two of the six have citations, but three of the articles have the phrase city of peace mentioned as their names. As for the other three of the six, I am sure a source can be found to verify this, the first sentence of the Eirene (redirect to Irene) article: "Irene is a name derived from the Greek word εἰρήνη (eirēnē) meaning 'peace'" The three in question are: Eirinoupoli, a city in Greece. Irenopolis, Cilicia. Irenopolis, Isauria. I am sure you can see the correlation.

Sentence two: I stand fully behind my statements, and I will WP:NOTSUICIDE. Anarchangel (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as three of the target articles do mention "city of peace". I have removed the other three, which are cities whose names may well be translations of "city of peace" but do not justify a dab page entry. We don't include Dublin under Black Pool or Blackpool (disambiguation) just because that's the English translation of its name. PamD 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have not, so far. It is not necessary. But it would be useful. I will be the first to point out that Useful is not an accepted argument for inclusion. But I disagree with that rule; usefulness is in short supply here at WP, which is little more than a quicker way into the same collection of links that one could find on Google. I restored the three, per my argument above, before I read your argument about translation. Not really convinced I should change it back, though, after reading it. I probably would not anyway, because it is preferable to leave articles unchanged during an AfD, so everyone's votes and rationales retain their meaning. If it can be fixed with editing, it should not be here at AfD, it should be at WP:RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A common phrase, and valid DAB, as some cities on the world have received this pseudonym. —Hahc 21 23:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. deleted as copyvio. I had deprodded it, as the copyvio was not then specified, and the presence of several hundred libraries (and publication from a good reference book publisher) seemed to imply probable notability. My error for not checking copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond Encyclopedia

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

no indication of WP:NBOOK. Disputed prod. No WP:reliable sources to establish notability. Google searches find very few references. Prod disputed with a directory entry ref but no significant coverage. noq (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:COPYVIO of the Amazon.com blurb. No reviews in evidence. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 16 June 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 quick (but not speedy) renomination if sourcing isn't found. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toymaster

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

While there seems to be a bit of coverage on Highbeam, I didn't find enough to established depth of coverage per WP:CORP. Usually the company is mentioned incidentally in articles discussing other topics. Further, it has been unsourced aside from primary sources since inception, and has been rewritten in the past to sound promotional by someone presumably involved with the company (see the very short article history). SÆdon^talk 00:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they apparently have over 250 locations. It seems unfathomable for a business to be that large and not have reliable sources out there somewhere. It does look like some spamming has occurred in the article, but we can't delete solely on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Patently notable. Ou tis (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place, but I found nothing substantial. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction and we can improve the article before the AFD finishes. SÆdon^talk 22:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since a couple editors have expressed that they believe this topic is notable, I've added it to the article rescue squadren's rescue list with the hopes that they'll be able to help out. Thanks. SÆdon^talk 22:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. SÆdon^talk 22:15, 17 June 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aneela Qureshi

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

Non-notable actress who meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. I've looked for sources, and while she's received some passing mentions, I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of her. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:59, 2 June 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, 9 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:UPANDCOMING. With only two supporting roles, she fails NACTOR miserably. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one starring role in Beaches, Buns and Bikinis [24] (Sheesh, Ron Jeremy is getting into everything!) and one minor named role in 869 [25] do not quite meet the expectations of WP:ENT, Coupled with a lack of sources dealing with her in any detail,[26] we also have a failure of WP:GNG as well. Unless sources come forward supporting her work in theater,[27] this one is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete as non-notable (yet) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julia (programming language)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY. Googling failed to turn any better sources. This may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NOTE and is a pretty obscure item by general standards. Just look on the books link and then also search for Perl language and will see the difference in coverage. History2007 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:GNG and only uses primary sources. ⇒T A P 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Julia is a new programming language -- a baby, if you will -- but a very interesting baby, being developed by a group of very talented people, headed by a faculty member of MIT. It is still very young, and its design is not finished, so naturally there are (as yet) no secondary texts. The day when you find "Julia for Dummies" on amazon.com is still a way off. Julia is obscure by comparison to Perl because almost every programming language is obscure by comparison to Perl. Perl is (or, until recently, was) the most widely-used dynamic language in the world. It is also one of the oldest. A better comparison might be to, say, Google's new Dart programming language. Which does have a wikipedia entry.

So that's why Julia deserves to be in Wikipedia. Now... why Wikipedia should have an article on Julia. Wikipedia is, now, for much of the world, the first place to look for information on any given topic. Julia is a legitimate, if young, programming language, and wikipedia should provide at least a modicum of basic information about it.

Finally, let me note for the record that I'm not in any way part of the Julia community or the Julia development team. I am a professional programmer who, over the decades, has seen the rise and decline of many programming languages. I feel that new programming languages -- especially languages with as strong a pedigree as Julia -- deserve to be treated with some respect. Some programming languages that are now just starting to become popular (e.g. Ruby) were once as obscure as Julia is now. So who knows? Perhaps one day, Julia will be as significant a programming language in its chosen niche -- fast processing of statistical data -- as Perl, Python, Ruby, D, Lua, Scala, and Dart are in theirs. StephenFerg (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument appears to be a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Just sayin' p b p 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think they may have presented something at Lang.NEXT, although I'm not sure if that alone would be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/Julia. —Ruud 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3rd party sources. Also, fails to meet GNG and several other guidelines. —Hahc 21 23:42, 23 June 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 (nomination withdrawn). The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete were posted (other than the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haitian Defile Kanaval

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that can verify the subject of this article, let alone support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 9 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article needs to be Wikified and cleaned up, but the topic is notable and there are plenty of sources. Its about the Mardi Gras carnival in Haiti, the same carnival that takes place in New Orleans, Rio de Janeiro, and around the Caribbean and some European Catholic places before Ash Wednesday every year. I had a quick search on the Web and found a source on the first post-earthquake Carnival in Port-au-Prince in an LA Times article: [28]. The article may need to be renamed simply to Haitian Carnival, I'll find out what the Creole name is and move if necessary. "Defile" in the title is just the French word for "parade".OttawaAC (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I agree that the article needs to be renamed. My search results changed considerably after I switched to "Carnival in Haiti", which is the first three words of the article. Here and here are two pictures published in telegraph.co.uk. However, reading the intro, it could be that the title of this article is "Carnavals in Haiti" or "Haitian carnavals". It lists a "pre carnaval in January", the "real carnaval" in February, and the July "Kanaval De Fleur". Topic is already covered at Carnival, so there is no argument to be made for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Thanks to OttawaAC for doing the more expanded search. I was searching the specific term, and was coming up short. Singularity42 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryann Shane

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Singularity42 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is in a major role in an upcoming TV show. There's no point in deleting a page that's going to be recreated soon enough, if you do. BLEAKGH - БЛЕАКЬ - بــلــكــغ - בּלכּג - 뱍가 - ᚷᚲᛇᛚᛒ 19:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's not an argument for notability, and the nominator is correct. And can you please modify your signature to waste less screen space? EEng (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleakgh (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the reason being...? The proceeding comment was added by User:Cyan Gardevoir who attempted to sign it but ran into an issue with a comment code - Monty ₈₄₅ 22:59, 20 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsourced BLP article and as such should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable actress. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLPPROD. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 02:27, 17 June 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 Flash fiction#Internet presence. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiction Online

AfDs for this article:

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

Article created by someone who admits being editor of the site. Only sources added at the time of a poorly-attended AFD several years back are extremely weak and fall far short of establishing enough notability for a Wikipedia article. CNN article is for overal topic of flash fiction and not the site, this site is barely mentioned at all. It is not enough to merely be mentioned in passing in a reliable source, the specific topic of the article must have nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this web site does not. Only other source is a not particularly good ranking on a best of poll on another entirely nonnotable website. If this is the best they have, they clearly fall way short of even being mentioned on Wikipedia at all, let alone having an article devoted to them. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm having some trouble finding enough RS to justify this article. I removed the reference to Critters.org (as the website doesn't appear to be a RS) and found a PC Magazine source, but two sources do not exactly justify an article. There's a ton of trivial mentions such as the CNN link currently in the article, but not much that actually focuses on the website. Maybe this could be mentioned in the flash fiction article and potentially used as a redirect?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find anything except for this link [29], which is really so brief that it'd only be considered trivial at most. I'm going to try to look into seeing if a section about flash fiction's online presence can be written and added to the flash fiction article, with this website being mentioned there. FF does seem to have a good online presence and this website does seem to be popular in its niche, but there's just not enough sources to merit an article to itself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flash_fiction#Internet_presence. There's not enough here to justify an article for the zine alone, but it could serve as a redirect to the Internet section of the flash fiction article. That section still needs to be worked on and the flash fiction article as a whole needs work, but the most important part of the redirect situation is that flash fiction is notable and while FFO is a visible example of the online presence of flash fiction, there's not enough RS to give it its own article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flash_fiction#Internet_presence. Sometimes a couple of sources can be all that it takes for a well-sourced small article, but unfortunately these sources are not really about the website but instead about flash fiction in general. I really have to agree with Tokyogirl79 on this one; I tried searching through Google Books and only came up with sources where authors had listed that they had published work through the website. Unfortunately, I believe this has to be redirected. Nomader (talk) 20:57, 16 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preditors and Editors

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced. Could not find any reliable sources (per WP:RS standards) for this at all, let alone multiple notable reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage, which is required before a topic can have its own Wikipedia article. Previous AFD in 2008 had only three participants and the two keep !votes were based upon assuming there must be sources without actually trying to provide any. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 10 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You wrote that you Could not find any reliable sources, but I can't tell how hard you looked. I found plenty of sources by looking at the above Google books and Google scholar links. Here's a few to start you off:
- Kelly, Stacia. Muse: breathe. focus. achieve. p. 44. ISBN 9780557129942. Preditors and Editors is also useful in finding out info about Agents and Editors.
- Liu, Cynthea. Writing for Children and Teens: A Crash Course (How to Write, Revise, and Publish a Kid's Or Teen Book with Children's Book Publishers). pp. 53–4. ISBN 9781605301143. Check Preditors and Editors.
- Lavene, Joyce. The Everything Guide to Writing a Novel: From Completing the First Draft to Landing a Book Contract--All You Need to Fulfill Your Dreams. p. 224. ISBN 9781593371326. Before accepting a professional editor's help with your manuscript, check them out. Preditors and Editors is good online resource for keeping tabs on scams and dishonest editors and agents.
- Watson, Irene. Authors Access: 30 Success Secrets for Authors and Publishers. p. 84. ISBN 9781932690989. Either way, be sure to check with "Preditors and Editors," a site which lists the sharks: the people out to fleece writers.
- Ephron, Hallie. The Everything Guide to Writing Your First Novel. p. 249. ISBN 9781440509575. The Preditors and Editors website evaluates writing contests based on a set of criteria and feedback from their users. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. The examples given above strongly appear to be trivial coverage, and not the subject of any article or book. If the only sourcable fact is "Preditors and Editors is a website listing naughty editors", then that's not enough. The resulting article would be one sentence long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I took some time to look at Dori's links, plus did the reasonable search. The Google scholar links (16 sources) mostly represent works which mention their own merit in a Preditors and Editors readers' poll. Two scholarly pdfs actually do cover the subject of editors and publishers, and P&E does get an endorsement in a single sentence each. A couple more are in the "how-to" category, and in neither case can the site claim more than a bare mention. A book search (which offers 625 results, of which only 316 appear) finds a number of the same kind of one sentence endorsements to which Dori links, plus a plethora of book cover brags. A general gsearch (55,000 results) gets tons of blogs and self-published web material, plus online books which bear the P&E readers' poll award. In no case did I see a reliable source offering so much as a paragraph directly detailing. This and another interview are the closest I got (certainly more than a paragraph, certainly less than RS). After reading, I'm of the opinion that the site is genuinely useful and an excellent resource for authors who are trying to sort wheat from chaff when trying to find reputable editors and publishers. According to blogs, the site editor is getting sued by some publishers the site listed as "preditors". However, none of this is criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. A reasonable case could be made that so many bare mentions might qualify as significant coverage. Offline sources might well exist. But based on what I saw in my search, I can't assert keep. Fails GNG and WEB. I'd be willing to reconsider if other sources arise. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pero Starblind and BusterD rationales. —Hahc 21 15:56, 23 June 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. Also, please don't move articles that are at AfD, it makes closing a pain for the closing admin. Thanks. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealu Mare Vineyard

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

Delete. It appears to be a wine region rather than an actual vineyard. A Dealu Mare wine region article may be justifiable at some stage but there is no need for a redir from this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The nominator's rationale seems more like an argument to rename the article than delete it. If it is a recognized region in Romania, then it qualifies for an article. I must say the cited source is confusing, designating a large area as a "vineyard" containing several viticultural centers. It makes me wonder if the source was mis-translated from Romanian somehow. List of wine-producing regions#Romania also seems confused, listing small towns and boroughs as distinct "wine regions". Maybe they are considered that way in Romania. I don't know. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:25, 11 June 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, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to The World Atlas of Wine section on Romania (pg 258 in the 2005 edition), Dealul Mare (note the slightly different spelling) is a wine making zone within the Muntenia region. Other sources (though not as reliable as the Wine Atlas) seems to back this idea up under the original Dealu Mare spelling. I would move the page to either Dealul Mare wine region or Dealu Mare wine region (depending on which spelling) rather than delete. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. It's a notable name (if you drink Romanian wine :) ). The term "vineyard" wasn't a good choice and needs to be changed. I see we have a disambig page at Dealu Mare with a long list of towns/villages (this isn't surprising because the name means "the big hill"). It might be just because the disambig page exists that the creator was led to choose this name. So, Dealu Mare wine region or something similar. The spelling variation (-l) is not meaningful but we'd need to decide which spelling is more standard. [PS Having written this I see that I am agreeing in every detail with Agne27!] Andrew Dalby 08:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: It appears to me that "Dealu Mare" (without -l) is currently preferred in Romanian sources and we should stay with that spelling. See also this handy source.

As for the "vineyard" term, it appears to have become semi-official in Romanian publicity in English. That's unlucky for us: it isn't a good choice as a disambiguating word. Also unluckily for us, the six big general-purpose geographical divisions of Romania are usually called "regions" and that's what they are called on the online wine maps. In terms of our Wikipedia categories, however, Dealu Mare is certainly one of the major Wine regions of Romania. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, just a bad translation choice in the title--I didn't track down completely, but I think a romanian word that we would translate as region can also mean vineyard. We also need to fix Târnave Vineyard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the move and done a little work on the article. Dealu Mare is clearly one of the best known wine producing regions in Romania. As for the old title, for anyone interested, the word "podgoria" can translate vineyard in English, and Google translates it that way. However, it can also mean "wine region", and thus the .ro wikipedia has the article ro:Podgorii în România, , meaning "Wine regions in Romania". (See also [30], an article about hail damage references that 100 hectares of "podgoria" in Buzau county being damaged. -- and [31], referring to the fairly well known Murfatlar Vineyards as "Podgoria Murfatlar".)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:50, 21 June 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.

^ Rangers: Walter Smith group drops bid for club BBC News, 19 June, 2012
^ Rangers finished: Liquidation next – and 'new club' likely to be voted out of SPL mirror.co.uk, 12 June 2012
^ Former Rangers boss Smith casts doubt on rival Green after abandoning bid to buy new club Daily Mail, 19 June 2012
^ Charles Green asks SPL and Scottish FA to transfer Rangers' memberships STV TV, accessed 20 June 2012

[1] Rangers: Walter Smith group drops bid for club BBC News, 19 June, 2012

[2] Rangers finished: Liquidation next – and 'new club' likely to be voted out of SPL mirror.co.uk, 12 June 2012

[3] Former Rangers boss Smith casts doubt on rival Green after abandoning bid to buy new club Daily Mail, 19 June 2012

[4] Charles Green asks SPL and Scottish FA to transfer Rangers' memberships STV TV, accessed 20 June 2012

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]