Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 27

< 26 August	28 August >

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 merge to Puella Magi Madoka Magica. Courcelles 21:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puella Magi Kazumi Magica

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

After attempting a merge proposal, giving sufficient reasons why the article should not exist, I am now taking this to AFD, with the same reasons as given on that talk page, where I stated: I do not believe that Puella Magi Kazumi Magica should have it's own article, as it has not demonstrated enough notability in reliable, third-party sources to warrant a split from the main Puella Magi Madoka Magica article (or the List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica chapters article). All the article has is a short introduction and a quick plot overview. What the series is can be covered in the main article, while the plot info as well as the release info goes well in the chapters article. Any information on characters is already in the characters article, too. So there's really nothing more that can be put into Puella Magi Kazumi Magica to make it anything more than a stub. Even reception info could easily go in the main article, especially considering that it has a very sparse reception section to begin with. 十八 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Frankly, this shouldn't even be at AfD. After all, AfD is for deleting articles, not for something that is an obvious merge. —Farix (t | c) 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I attempted the merge, but was reverted. Then the user that reverted me suggested I take it to AFD, and here we are.--十八 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question are we allowed to use text from TV Tropes? The talk page suggests that the TV Tropes page was used as a beginning for this article. --Malkinann (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the text there does not violate any other copyrighted material, I believe so given that there is attribution. TV Tropes is indeed licensed CC-BY-SA, though we still have to verify its accuracy. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge It's not much of a merge compared to what the main page already has, it's almost deletion.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with no prejudice against recreation. CSE hits. The first volume of Kazumi was the 5th best selling manga that week, which is fairly impressive; and as we all know, Madoka in general was a monster hit, so we can expect the RSs to show up (in Japanese anyway) eventually. I'd suggest a Keep based on that, but apparently WP:CRYSTAL is now so broad that even works in popular franchises which will pass the GNG sooner or later are supposed to be deleted. --Gwern (contribs) 23:44 28 August 2011 (GMT)
- I still say any reception could easily go in Puella Magi Madoka Magica, especially seeing as the current reception section is so small. There is simply not enough viable content to warrant the article's existence.--十八 03:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. If enough coverage comes forth, it can be separated out again in the future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Puella Magi Madoka Magica - The search term is also a valid redirect here, while there is not much to merge there is some that can fit into the main article including the image. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That image would be deemed decorative, and therefore not useful outside an infobox per WP:NFCC point 8.--十八 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arko Custom

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

Local non notable company; orphan tag since July 2009 Tom Pippens (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no independent sources found that may establish notability. By the way, this seems an obvious candidate for trying proposed deletion first, before bringing it to AfD. --Lambiam 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have mentioned above. Neutrality^talk 22:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of 12 newborn babies in Banja Luka

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Contested PROD: "This is very known incident" -> ^{[citation needed]}, and with three sources does not appear to be a "very known incident" (I didn't hear about it anyway). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As I said, this is very known incident during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a monument in Banja Luka (capital sity of Republic of Srpska) build by the goverment and dedicated to 12 babies.1. And 22nd of May was declared as the day of twelve babies in Republic of Srpska.2. There is also a street near the clinical center with the name "Twelve babies".2--В и к и в и н д T a L k 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not news. It is historical event. This event was one episode in Bosnian war and was catalyst for operation Corridor. It isn't our fault that foreign press didn't mention it. -- Bojan Talk 02:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per Wiki not a newspaper. Wiki should not be a place for Serbian propaganda, nor any propaganda at all. Milorad Dodik every year pays a lot of money for such activites. ICTY is a place where Serbian propaganda was sentenced to eternal shame, due to the fact it was part of the strategy of Serbian leadership according to the findings by ICTY in Yugoslav wars. BokicaK said: "the episode was catalyst for operation Corridor". This is all wrong. According to the verdict to Serbian war criminal, Simić (case IT-95-9), Operation Corridor was one of many operations of ethnic cleansing of non-Serb population. Now, these anonymous users, are writting articles in order to help war ciminals in ICTY, making fake execuses for their crimes. Wiki should not be part of that. Alan.Ford.Jn (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This event happened. Your personal opinion leave for yourself. -- Bojan Talk 13:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here are sources from ICTY [1] [2] [3] -- Bojan Talk 13:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has an overwhelming whiff of propaganda. I fear that there is nothing that is salvageable from this article. It appears to be full of weasel language. As this event occurred during a civil war, I think independent sources can only really be found from an international perspective. The lack of recognisable international sources makes this story next to impossible to verify.

Whilst I'm not suggesting it didn't happen. If we remove the unreferenced material (and we are generous), we are left with a stub which suggests nothing more than 12 babies died in a hospital in 1992 because of a lack of oxygen (and that includes even if we add the material from ICTY justed posted by User:BokicaK). Pit-yacker (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babies died due to lack of oxygen, that is not something that happens every day, even in wars. Those who survived have/had awful life. Shortage of oxygen (and other goods) came due to cutting land links to Serbia and due to no-fly zone over Bosnia. Babies are not exclusively Serbs, article never said something like that (first version of article had list of their mothers, so people from Balkans can easily guess what nationality mothers were). The event was catalyst/trigger for subsequent military operation. -- Bojan Talk 14:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing anyone suggesting the babies were exclusively Serbian. From the point of view of a Wikipedia article, it doesn't matter either way provided any claim (particularly controversial ones) can be verified by reliable sources.

And that is the problem at the moment. Practically the only thing we have any reference for (and that any can be found for) is that 12 babies died. Virtually every other assertion put forward is completely unverifiable at this stage.

When I say that, I'll go as far as ignoring the apparent constant use of weasel language, and logical gaps which suggest we aren't hearing the full neutral story. The problem is that fundamentally, if it is unverifiable it doesn't matter if the article is neutral or not because without independent verifiable sources the unreferenced material cannot be fixed. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See AlanFord's comment which I understand as inflammatory with tendency to potray us like animals that have no human feelings. -- Bojan Talk 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I would like to ask nicely some users here not to talk about "Serbian propaganda" on Wikipedia, while they themselves spread Muslim propaganda, especially if their history if full of such. This is something that really happened, and this is a fact. This is NOT a newspaper news, this is history. Therfore, it is a historical fact, ans as a such, it cannot be deleted. If someone haven't heard of it, it is not Wikipedia's problem, it is his problem and he should work a little bit more on informing himself. And of course, it is NOT an argument at all, is it? :) If someone thinks it is POV, then clean it. But you cannot delete it. The fact is that the babies died, and the fact is that they died due to the lack of oxygen that couldn't be administered to them because of the war. There's nothing in this that could be tagged as propaganda. --Maduixa (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...and historical events are generally considered "facts" because they are written about by numerous sources. That even happened in ancient Rome. Provide some reliable sources to back up the claims made (particularly in the "Background" section) and you have yourself an article where NPOV issues might be fixable. Until then you have little beyond the title of the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There will always be those who deny the reality of suffering. Government of the Republic of Srpska: Nineteenth Anniversary of 12 Babies’ Death Commemorated --Bas-Celik (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if by any chance the consensus is that it doesn't meet the threshold of notability for a standalone article, this content should still be merged into Propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars because it was apparently used for that, continuing to the present day - an anonymous user has been persistently whitewashing Operation Corridor recently, claiming it was all done to save the dying babies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Pit-yacker. The article in its current state is little more than an overblown stub. Whether something is a historic event or not depends on the sources covering it and as far as I can tell this event had very limited non-local coverage. Without going into the whole matter of the event possibly being (ab)used by historical revisionists, the fact of the matter is that unless it can be proven that it is notable enough via reliable sources we have no reason to think that this meets our GNG threshold. And currently the article has three references - one is offline and the other two are short newspaper articles about the death of Slađana Kobas, the only surviving baby. Seems pretty thin. Timbouctou (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a newspaper article. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, the references in the article do not indicate the sort of (non-local) media coverage normally required for notability. This sort of event is more suited for coverage in the article about the corresponding city, war or battle. Sandstein 07:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G10'ed as an attack BLP. Author and sockpuppet who supported keeping indefinitely blocked. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged self-plagiarism by Bruno Frey and others

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

The admission of self-plagiarism is adequately covered in the article on Bruno Frey. This article places undue emphasis on the issue and suffers from recentism. NtheP (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This is considerably longer than the article on Bruno Frey himself. The author might more usefully demonstrate his close and extensive interest in Prof Frey by expanding on the substance of his writings whilst demonstrating a neutral point of view. The issue of self-plagiarism certainly does not merit an article of its own - as things stand the issue arguably gets disproportionate space in the Frey article itself. --AJHingston (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge useful content and expand the main article. Being publicly reprimanded in one of the leading economics journal is big and unprecedented, as is a prominent economist being caught for academic dishonesty. While other disciplines had its fair share of such scandals, this might the first such scandal in economics that involves a prominent member of the profession. This fork might be overkill, but some content should be merged to the main article. Stepopen (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is probably the most notable case of plagiarism to have hit the academe within the last decade. It's not only Frey (a potential Nobel Prize winner) who's involved, but dozens of co-authors from universities like Harvard and MIT to Zurich. The article definitely needs work, and as of now there aren't many reliable sources (there are certainly issues surrounding WP:BLP in the article). But the significance of the topic matter is not in doubt. I am commenting on an alternate account for fears of retribution from the persons involved in this case. I have read Wikipedia policies on this matter and will be in full compliance with them. Invisible Hands (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete only this section:Alleged_self-plagiarism_by_Bruno_Frey_and_others#First_reports_of_self-plagiarism_and_subsequent_reprimand is properly sourced and npov. the rest of the article under discussion seems to be an amalgam of original research and synthesis and it lacks reliable sources (econjobrumors.com indeed). the good material in the first section is already present in the version of the main bruno frey article that predates the version made by creator of this one copying this entire article into that one. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (do not merge): poorly sourced and synthy piece about a LP. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: this page details facts. Additional references are needed. The information that is provided is necessary to understand the debate on self-plagiarism. No statements are original research, all statements by academic economists, all conclusions are made elsewhere. All statements are properly sourced (although some links to the original sources are missing as of yet). Please substantiate claims of OR. Please view page ratings. Olaf Storbeck is a journalist for the Handelsblatt newspaper with a circulation of 145.000 copies and he translates his own published articles to English. The WSJ is not the primary source, it summarizes Handelsblatt journalism. In his comments on the WSJ blog^[1], Storbeck credits Econjobrumors and Gelman for discovering the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansKeppel (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — HansKeppel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, OR/attack page. Hairhorn (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attack page. OR and OSYN. Matter is dealt with in BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action News at 4pm

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2011 August 27 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, the article appears to lack sufficient notability and the subject matter is not noteworthy for its own separate article, its contents should likely be merged into article WPVI-TV. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local news cruft. It's a 4pm local newscast that's not any different than any other 4pm local newscast in the United States, with the same mix of local news, consumer stories and Hollywood non-news. Nate • (chatter) 02:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Xyz or die (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that this local news cast is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 21:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Yakuza

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

Non-notable film; only reference is an IMDb listing. Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Anton Bitel reviewed it here, a DVD Active review, and a TV Guide review. Book coverage, book coverage, and more book coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NF per sources found and offered by Joe Chill. See WP:NRVE. While certainly a reason to tag for concerns, available sources not being in an article does not equate to non-notability, nor require deletion. To quote: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." As the sources are available and have been offered, notability has been established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I see your point, other Mike, but the article had been up for two years without any sources being added, which led me to presume they did not exist. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, WP:NOEFFORT aside, we know now that they do exist and the article can be improved accordingly. Seems a decent reason to tag for cleanup rather than to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True that, my brother, and an excellent reminder to me (and to us all). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable as per WP:NF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. You're wish is my command

delete

Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteme

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

Non-notable topic. Unreferenced in over a year. Contested PROD. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is the request that led to the article being restored after it had been deleted (more than a year earlier!) per an expired PROD. --Lambiam 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons I stated in the link provided above by Lambiam. -- Atama頭 01:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't establish notability, doesn't seem possible to expand beyond a dictionary definition. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. No progress since article was revived in April 2011. --Kvng (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication or assertion of notability. I don't think the funny side of deleting an article called "Delete me" is lost on anyone. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Derby

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

This completely unreferenced article describes an occasional friendly match which has sometimes taken place between two teams, which are not in the same town. There is no reason to suppose it is regular or ever described as a "derby". The article seems to fail all notability tests SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - football rivalries can be notable; this one is not. Giant Snowman 18:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this rivalry is notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication that the subject passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2. Courcelles 21:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball: Plan to Eradicate the Super Saiyans

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

A remake to a Japanese OAV feature from 1993 that was only available as a bonus feature in the video game Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2, which is only showing importance within the scope of video game. This and the article to the 1993 version are showing no real world content. Sarujo (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. And this should be deleted.... why, exactly? If there was ever an obvious merge candidate, this was it. --Gwern (contribs) 21:21 27 August 2011 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2011 (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) 23:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into game article and maybe mention the remake in Dragon Ball Z Side Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans. No reason to split spin this out into a stand-alone article as it doesn't pass the notability criteria. In fact, it's pretty much a copy of the article on the original OVA. (WP:CFORK) List of Dragon Ball films#Original video animation would also be a good merge/redirect target. —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2. There's no evidence of separate notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2 like nihon has suggested.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2 per Nihon. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no further discussion since the 2nd relisting, there's no consensus to do anything. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24HERBS

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

Contested PROD; rationale was "No evidence of notability". I haven't found anything since then to prove otherwise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Note; I also don't speak Chinese.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added zh link. Dengero (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't an ample amount of sources to aid the article in verification, I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo aside from blogs, YouTube, etc. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep went through a few pages of their blog, linked from the article, and it looks like they probably qualify: South China Morning Post [4], Oriental Daily News [5][6], a hk fashion mag called MILK [7], TVB [8], UMagazine [9], ...i stopped there 86.44.18.93 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at those, and though someone who knows Chinese could certainly confirm this those just look like pictures of the band. They don't appear to be full articles or anything approaching that; the MILK and Oriental Daily especially are just single images, and the others are pictures with short blurbs which are probably ads. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Oriental Daily pieces are full of text & the accompanying images are watermarked by the OD. The South China Post is clearly no ad. The TVB footage and the UMag are clearly not ads (UMag give an intro graf, and a key for understanding who is talking in their interview - the red text "U:" is the mag's questions). The MILK is a short blurb, which doesn't appear to me to be advertising due to the "new arrivals" heading. Some pieces are image-heavy because one of their members is a fashion designer, it seems rather in the manner that other groups have had a resident dancer. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to tell us what they are saying, then? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the foggiest. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't this be BLPPROD'd? It's close to the line, but it's a bio article on a group of people, not a list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have liked to, though I think that should be taken up at WT:BLPPROD as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 20:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BlooP and FlooP

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

This article, I feel, is not really in accord with WP:NN. None of the information on this page is new; it is simply a summary of Hofstadter's summary of primitive recursive functions in his book Godel, Escher, Bach, and as such, there really isn't even anything to merge. Having read the book (it is among my favorite works), I am still of the opinion that this is in no way notable, significant, or unique enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Ocean ♫ Etude 08:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep indirectly notable through Gödel, Escher, Bach. A merge to that article would also be a possibility. —Ruud 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two languages illustrate an important point and a distinction between languages. As they were given early prominence through their publication in EGB, they have an important role as the commonplace representation of this distinction. This is reflected by their citation in the linked references.

That said, the article fails to express this significance. Expansion to explain why the distinction is important would be welcomed. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 19:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concepts are extremely important, but are already discussed at primitive recursive function and computable function. The specific notation used by Hofstadter lacks either book and journal sources (outside GEB itself), which suggests it's not particularly notable. On the other hand, this page could make a good introductory-level article to the concepts. To do so, however, it would need some work. -- 202.124.74.200 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the lack of sources means that such work would inevitably be WP:OR. -- 202.124.72.196 (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do these busy-bodies come from, the self-annointed gurus who decide what is and isn't "notable" for all the rest of us? This is interesting stuff. And can be useful if developed a bit. I noticed someone put some examples in. Nothing wrong with that: an example or examples is not "O.R." The O.R. was achieved by Hofstadter. BillWvbailey (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When people say "notability," they mean the rules in WP:N. Nobody (apart from the original work by Hofstadter) seems to have written in reliable sources about BLooP and FLooP. We could pad the article out with Unlimited Register Machine examples converted to BLooP/FLooP syntax, but that would be WP:OR. I've got a (longish) FLooP implementation of the Ackermann function, for example, but inserting it would probably be against the rules. On the other hand, inserting BLooP/FLooP examples into other articles would probably be inappropriate. -- 202.124.72.187 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep The sheer number of implementations of BLooP/FLooP argues some notability, but reliable sources are badly needed. I also wonder if any colleges teach computability using BLooP/FLooP syntax? -- 202.124.72.187 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search of ".edu" sites finds several college courses that at least mention BLooP/FLooP, which suggests enough notability to keep the article. -- 202.124.73.250 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, a few books (e.g. Forster, 2003) do specifically cite Hofstadter's Bloop/FlooP formulation. -- 202.124.73.250 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as part of a copyright infringement. Non-admin closure. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waheed Ahmed

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

A cursory search shows nothing on google, and I believe he fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:GNG. I would've just BLP prodded it, but it was created in '05. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I found a good search, then I realized the page is copyvio. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ryan. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Żyleta

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

Not even a stadium, not even an existing stadium, but a "section" of a "former" stadium. I attempted to do a redirect, but it was reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this! Żyleta is not a section in the former stadium, but it is an existing stand in the new stadium. It is more than a stand, it is a synonym of spontaneous and eager football support of Legia fans. It has its own history, distinct from the stadium itself. The redirection to the stadium definition was a misunderstanding. If you have any idea about Polish football fans environment, you would know that Żyleta is an independent, long-time identified concept, which deserves to be seperately recognized by Wikipedia. Moreover, the existence of this definition is coherent with the Polish Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdztony (talk • contribs) August 27, 2011

If what you are saying is correct and the topic meets the notability standards of the English Wikipedia (not the Polish Wikipedia), then please add reliable, independent sources to the article that show that notability. Unless such sources are provided, the article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see two references, seems good enough for this stub to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to article about stadium. Only reference is to website of football team whose fans frequented that section of the stadium. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject seems notable, per Wdztony (see also pl wiki article). Reliable references (in Polish) are provided. Yes, they are bare and need formatting, and the entire article is the traditional poor stub, but well, this is what stubs are. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polish Army Stadium. Giant Snowman 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in case of many other sport stadiums, some specific stands also have their independent definitions (see for example Stretford End in the Old Trafford stadium). Why in those other cases, the particular stand may satisfy the notability requirements and not here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdztony (talk • contribs) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Redirect to the stadium. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable? References have been provided, and just check pl:Żyleta (Legia Warszawa) to see that the article can be destubbed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one reliable, independent source. Certainly the football club's own website can't be considered an independent source, can it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? One good source seems enough for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough for the English Wikipedia. We require independent reliable sources (plural) to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are plural independent reliable sources. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that this is a section of a stadium is immaterial - in substance this is no different then an article like Dawg Pound (or should that be redirected to Cleveland Browns Stadium also?), it's just not in US or UK so the AfD might suffer from cultural bias, where people vote based on a "I haven't heard of it therefore it's not notable", which is NOT a good reason for deletion/redirect. Here's another source: [10]. The sections and the fans have also been part of political controversy, here's another reliable source: [11]. I could keep looking but they're not that hard to find and at this point there's something like 4 or 5 sources for this, which should be more than enough to keep this article (as separate).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more sources: [12] (note the name "Zyleta" can also refer to fans), [13], [14], [15].Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article a little and added two new and reliable sources (links to Gazeta Wyborcza and Eurosport articles). I intend to expand the definition systematically (I don't have so much free time), so it can meet the Wikipedia criteria more fully. So far, please understand, that Żyleta is an independent notion from the stadium. It is a part of the stadium, but it also refers to a cultural and social phenomenon. It has been part of political controversy, as Volunteer Marek mentioned. I (and hopefully other users) will describe this phenomenon more broadly in time. Wdztony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdztony (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because multiple, independent reliable sources have been provided, some of which I've read using Google Translate. That doesn't do anywhere as good a job with Polish to English as it does with Spanish or German to English, but I could get the general drift. Thanks to the editors who provided the references, and good wishes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bringing to the English wikipedia well researched pieces such as this, for which there are virtually no sources in English is, I feel, what makes wikipedia exceptional: the subject is notable and wikipedia is probably the first English source to mention it. Good addition to the Polish Army Stadium, which will otherwise risk to be too long.Divide et Impera (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic comment: well said. Sometimes, articles like this make Wikipedia not only the first, but also the last and the most comprehensive possible source in English on the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was the version when I brought it to AfD. Hardly "well researched". The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close this discussion: I think that at this point the debate whether to delete the article may be closedWdztony.

While I agree with that, please do not vote more than once per discussion. Please also sign your posts correctly. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm just the beginner. Still learning may way around here Wdztony (talk)

AfD didscussions run seven days. Early close would be inappropriate. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not less notable than Dawg Pound. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note that this does not preclude a merge as suggested. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor registry

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

No sourcing. As an exercise, I removed everything I couldn't find an RS for, and all that remained was the article title, so it seems to not be notable enough for an article. I did find usage of the term for things like cancer survivor registries, or holocaust survivor registries, but that is not what the article is about. Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content to Aftermath of the September 11 attacks, and then delete the article without leaving a redirect. (Changing to "Delete", see below) This article is about two survivor registries created in the immediate aftermath of 9-11; neither of them appear to have received any significant news coverage as far as I can find, so it fails WP:N. As nominator noted, there are many other "survivor registries" for cancer survivors etc. which seem to be more active and notable, so a redirect to the Aftermath article would be counterproductive; most people looking for "survivor registry" would be looking for something quite different. If a redirect must be left, the name should be changed, to something like 9-11 survivor registry. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ixnay on the merge and delete. If merged a redirect must be left behind. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my !vote is delete. There's nothing sourced to merge in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 911 aspect is notable and I have added citations to news reports and books. But history did not start with the internet and 911 and there are similar issues for other major disasters. I have made a start on fleshing out the article to cover these too. Developing articles rather than deleting them is our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material you added can be easily merged into The Holocaust (or related sub articles), Red Cross (or related articles), and September 11 attacks (or related sub-articles). There is no independent notability for "Survivor registry", there are only examples of things called "survivor registries" - at best a WP:SYNTH exercise. There is no need for an independent article on this topic because all the information could fit with ease elsewhere, and the redirect could go to multiple places, so deciding on one would be unfair to the others. The only way I see this being saved as an entry is as a dab page, that lists the different articles for which the term "survivor registry" might be used, but that is also a bit ridiculous considering the topics - I doubt someone searches for "survivor registry" looking for info on 911 or The Holocaust. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going out on a limb here, because although it is a kind of synthesis, it still should be kept. Some articles need to be kept precisely because WP is the only place for such aggregated information needed by our core readership - college and high-school students. It's unique in that it collects similar information on a sequela of different events. Bearian (talk)

The turn it into a list of survivor registries. What happens is that the topic is so not notable independently, there are no institutions called survivor registries. You see the problem? This approaches near-hoax levels of non-notability.--Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I would not oppose that move or change. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its present form. improved by col Warden into a decent start for an article. I don't think there's any real qurestion that such registries have references are discussed in sources. It's more than a list, so I would oppose such a move. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pay 'n Save. Courcelles 21:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yard Birds

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One store retailer doesn't seem notable enough. Some info can be moved to ex-parent Pay 'n Save. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 01:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This is at root a historical piece and should not be judged by the standards we would expect current firms to fulfill. Further: much of the history of this company is pre-internet. ~~That said, here's the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE on Home Depot's decision to close the Yard Birds division. There are numerous similar stories to be found from various communities.~~ This article needs sourcing, but that's an editing task. Carrite (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad, different firm. Carrite (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Pay 'n Save. Caldorwards4 has made a good call with that advice but should have phrased his opinion as a Merge rather than a Delete. That's a really nice piece, by the way, somebody did good work there. Carrite (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I understand Carrite's reasoning. Ergo, giving this AfD a relist to clarify consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pay 'n Save. I agree this is useful information, just not notable enough as a stand-alone article. Irolnire (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was that the page has already been speedily deleted as a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arturas Rosenbacher

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

Delete. This should have been a speedy delete. I've deleted almost everything on the page except the main assertion as to who he is, which is probably a hoax.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to find. No notability.Looks like self-promoTMCk (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is a hoax, it may well be a BLP violation too. I can't find anything on Google about this person, other than FaceBook etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And now, unfortunately, Google brings up Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy snow delete - please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bin it Drivel. Peridon (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update.Speedy delete was accepted. I assume someone will close this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Appalachian Wars

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

No evidence of notability for this self-published book. (Trafford Publishing books are used far too often as a source for articles, I'm sure without the editors realising they are WP:SPS). Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (no coverage, no cites at all in GScholar let alone a significant number of them); note also that the article creator is the book's author. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Maybank

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

His books and plays are all self-published, no evidence of notability in sources linked to the article. No mention in Google Books except for links to a few of his books - ~~the brief mention of someone with his name in two sources appears to be someone else.~~ Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that is him, but that doesn't seem enough to meet our criteria, which are:

for Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Delete; having enough money to pay someone to publish your books is not a notability criterion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete; The person has created a collective body of work. Some self-published books include Remembrance of things Past, Ulysses, & The Bridges of Madison County; some self-published authors include: Zane Grey, Ezra Pound, Mark Twain, Virginia Wolff, & Edgar Allen Poe. A number of Maybank's works can be found at the Vancouver, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Toronto Libraries. –Chiscotheque (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Having one's books in a few libraries is not evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice towards creation of a list along the lines of the Arsenal list, or the other 13 FL's with similar titles. Courcelles 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bohemian F.C. players

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

PROD contested by article creator, who saus that this list is "easily referenced" - yet it has remained unreferenced since its creation in November 2010. I believe that the article should be deleted because sources for players, in order to create a list similar to List of Arsenal F.C. players and many more, will be very hard to find, and I don't view it as suitable in having this page as a collection of biographies (again, unreferenced!) of people who are not notable enough to have their own page. Giant Snowman 14:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CLN says that this list may exist as a counterpart to Category:Bohemian F.C. players. It would, in fact, be quite easy to fill out and source this list from the sources given in those articles. WP:BURDEN says "it has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself". I submit that Giant Snowman has not done this, even though I have pointed these sources out to him. This nomination therefore fails WP:BEFORE, part B, item #2.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you pointed me to these sources? Giant Snowman 14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff.—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a Wikipedia category counts as a reliable source - especially one full of unreferenced BLPs... Giant Snowman 15:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have to follow the links to find the sources. A degree of effort is involved; sorry about that.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, the category is full of unreferenced BLPs, and many non-notable articles. Giant Snowman 14:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That's exactly what we agreed when we discussed this before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Morris (footballer). At that time, you said this, which I understood to be unequivocally supporting the idea of converting the separate articles to a single list. I'm confused by your apparent change of heart on this.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I supported a redirect, never a merge, which is what it has become, and I have changed my mind over time - now instead of having two seperate unreferenced articles, we have one. Giant Snowman 22:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing one unreferenced list. Hang on, I'll go and reference it for you.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There, I've now added the reference I pointed out in October 2010.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? If so, please tell me you're joking - that website is a cross between a Wikipedia mirror and a telephone directory! Giant Snowman 00:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's the exact same reference you greeted positively and enthusiastically the last time we discussed this.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was positive about the idea of a list, not the source. Giant Snowman 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article like this should only exist if fully sourced or something similar to List of Arsenal F.C. players. This articles is in a bad state and in my opinion if these players do not have their own articles then this in affect are unsourced biographies. Are these players alive because if these are then could be deleted as a WP:BLP issue. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a list. The sourcing issues are fixable, which means we're supposed to collaborate on fixing them (at which time we can remove any entries that remain unsourced). I think the mistake underlying this post is the belief that AfD is about the current state of the list. It isn't. It's about whether a decent list could exist with this title.—S Marshall T/C 23:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in its current state this isn't a list at all more like an article. On top of that whet ever way you look it if there alive then it is a unreferenced WP:BLP. These are lists List of Manchester United F.C. players, List of Manchester City F.C. players and List of Chelsea F.C. players. Dose this look like any of those no. So it clearly is just biography's on these two players. Warburton1368 (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you re-read what I've already told you?—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I first saw this list I was relatively supportive of the concept as a way of removing loads of unreferenced biographies. I even merged an article here. Trouble is, sourcing it seems to be almost impossible. The only source at present is a Wiki mirror, and the only results I could find by searching for the two players on the list at the moment were some random news reports with no real information and this, which is demonstrably inaccurate by at least eight years. So apparently a list like this is going to fail WP:V, unless someone knows better, in which case I'll reconsider. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthwhile article of this title might be possible if appropriate sources exist. But this isn't it, and to turn it into a keepable article would effectively be to start from scratch. Just two people are listed, and it isn't obvious why that particular pair have been included. If either of these existed as separate articles, they would be BLPPROD candidates. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scienide

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

Prod added quoting WP:NSONGS, prod removed, text added saying it was "rare" and only 500 copies pressed - which doubly confirms that this is a non-notable song. Richhoncho (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS (no sources at all in the article, and I couldn't find anything in a Google search except for listings of the contents of the album "Music for the Jilted Generation"). "Scienide" is already mentioned in the album's article, so really nothing to merge anywhere. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a promotional single isn't notable, however the fact that no sources exist for its existence as a single makes me rather dubious, not least the fact that it is appallingly written. I suggest delete and warn the user if (s)he hasn't been warned already.--94.0.97.17 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: the nominator forgot to transclude this AfD

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nymets2000 (t/c/l) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. sufficient sourceshave been given after the relisting. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morning care

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

Unreferenced synthesis. Most content is already covered in various articles, such as unlicensed assistive personnel. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research unsupported by any sources that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge (for now)~~ This is valid information, but so far does not fit into a standalone article. There are several targets of caregiving-related articles I can think of. If it can be sourced and expanded, I would support keeping it as a standalone article. Tatterfly (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic in nursing. Many books about training nursing assistants discuss the topic in depth, such as these:

Keep per above sources. May need to be marked as a stub or suggested as a merge. Tatterfly (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's really not enough participation here to determine that consensus has changed from the previous AFD. We have 2 !votes, one "delete" (plus the nom) and one "merge". The suggested merge target does not exist and the delete !voter did not say why the sources presented in the last AFD were insufficient. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Rabbit

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

An article which once had a PROD for 8 months, and later speedied under A7, it underwent an earlier AfD, and is back again.

I can't find anything for this band that passes WP:BAND. Of the links brought up in the last AfD for this article, the only one that actually works is the Allmusic link, and I have some suspicions about that too.

How can I have my [stuff] added to the [...] database? [Allmusic] will add any product submissions we receive to the database as long as they are commercially available in their country of release...

Which shows that Allmusic is partly user-contributed, which is not reliable. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 00:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jean Baudin, though I'm torn. I found these links EMG pickup sponsors, interview here which are enough to establish to me that they ARE in fact a recognized band in the underground, just in the basis that EMG felt them worth listing as a sponsor and Jean Baudin was worthy of an interview (which mentions that he has played with the bands mentioned in the intro). At the same time, at cursory glance I couldn't find any other third-party sources that seem to verify the facts about the band. I got the impression that band founder Jean Baudin is actually the topic that has the most potential coverage, and that this page be reworded, unsourced info be cut out, and merged to Jean Baudin, with a section on Nuclear Rabbit and discography included in his personal list. Sloggerbum (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Lack of reliable sources to verify article. Sources given in previous afd not really convincing me that they are that notable. Allmusic pages just say they exist and have made 2 albums with no proper reviews or biography. Mattg82 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Titans

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

Apparently non-notable American Football team in the UK. The only significant thing a google news and web search turns up a single Manchester Evening News article. The article is actually about Ricky Whittle who is probably more notable for being in Strictly Come Dancing and Hollyoaks, and the mention of the team is in the trivia section (he plays for the team). Living in the city of Manchester I can honestly say I have never heard of the team. Perhaps the teams own Photobucket (linked on page) site says all that needs to be said about its notability. The crowds are virtually non-existent. A secondary problem is that the article is completely unreferenced. Given the lack of sources, I dont see how this can be remedied. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Also found a BBC News article from 2007 that gives a one sentence mention in an article about another team. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 2: The history section is a cut and paste of the teams own website. I'll also note the existence of the book "American Football Teams in England" with the following summary from Google books Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online Pit-yacker (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs aren't anything, some minor bits in the news. Their website shows they have no sponsors and nobody posts to the club forum. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add. In game photos show no fans... Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete otherwise Merge to BAFA National Leagues, the club's parent league. Insufficient significant coverage in WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Current article is sourced from the team's own website plus its league's website. In addition to sources listed in the nomination, additional Manchester Evening News sources at Manchester Titans 20 - 12 Clyde Valley Blackhawks and Titans now in the final four. Also one source at South Manchester Reporter. However, WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.", so we cannot overweight the Manchester Evening News coverage. Therefore, GNG's expectation of multiple sources is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant copyright violation. The bulk of this article has been copied word-for-word from the team's own web site, and removing that would leave precious little to establish notability. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business

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

Advert In ictu oculi (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Same problem as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Visser. Sorry, seeing as its such a nicely formatted article, but looks like advertising. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. LadyofShalott 06:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly promotional article. A description of a non-fition book at such inordinate detail usually is. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Visser

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

non notable, advertising Stumbled on this at random, no axe to grind. But looks like an advert promoting The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business, to be consistent put an AfD on that too Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Age_of_Responsibility:_CSR_2.0_and_the_New_DNA_of_Business In ictu oculi Don't actually like doing AfDs. But mm this seems to be non notable. (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposed deletion for the reasons given. Also no axe to grind -- just happened on this. ServiceAT (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 9 does not meet WP:Prof#C1. Solid puffery is a put-off. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

for someone whose notability is in writing practically oriented books, not scholarly articles, h index by itself is usually pretty useless as an exclusion rationale. I don't think anyone would say he meets WP:PROF; the question is whether he meets WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incinerate - Spam --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Millar

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

Person who has played for a debatebly notable American Football team in the UK for 2 years. Article fails to state why this person is notable. Article only has 3 references. 2 of the 3 are to the team's own website. The third is a local free-sheet newspaper. A news and web search on Google turns up nothing further of value. I'm inclined to suggest that IF this person's sports career was ever to take off and they became truly notable, most of the article as it stands would become trivial detail. What is left, could if necessary, be re-created very quickly Pit-yacker (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: There seems to be problems with Yellow Advertiser's website so here is a link to the Google cache of the article: [16] Its worth note that Lee Millar gets a single mention (as part of a list of other players) in "paragraph" 10 of 11. Pit-yacker (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any non-trivial coverage of Millar. The sources provided are either not independent and/or consist of passing references. Cbl62 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Own team's website does not count.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-administrator housekeeping close WP:NAC following speedy WP:G7 deletion requested by the author of the page. Msnicki (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WinSEND

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

This article about a new software package does not provide any independent, reliable sources that demonstrates that it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability Claviere (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to our university page about the conference where our paper accepted as first implementation of SEND for windows notability sara1981 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability WP:N. Though I appreciate this is a PhD project, there is nonetheless an element of WP:MADEUP at work here: "If you have invented something novel in school, in your university lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, please do not write about it in Wikipedia." Msnicki (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Article was speedy deleted by a G7 placed by the author. Syrthiss (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Habib Beldi

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

Cannot find any sources on him. No evidence of him appearing in a match. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 07:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume that you have seen this link, it is a part of the article. Is footballdatabase.~~com~~eu considered a reliable source? We refer to the database in 1,336 articles. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, having played in a fully-professional league. Giant Snowman 12:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having played in the Qatar Stars League, he clearly passes WP:NSPORT as that league is fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY C.2 ---Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. I added more references to the article to include his Qatar Stars League (QSL) debut and a link to his QSL profile, in case there was any doubt.TonyStarks (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends: The one with the truth about london

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

No notability established per WP:EPISODE Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom reasons. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Already got enough about it in Friends (season 7). Nate • (chatter) 12:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A10) based on Friends (season 7). Singularity42 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate anchor location in Friends (season 7), as seems to be consensus for most Friends episodes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Title is malformed and unlikely search term (the colon and casing), so redirection is impossible. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those two factors don't affect searching in the search box - I can type "friends the one with..." and it comes up as a suggestion. Redirects are cheap - why not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 20:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of merchandise from Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!

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

This goes waaay too far into advert land. Perhaps some of the content could go into other articles, but to have an article whose sole purpose is to list all the non-notable merchandise associated with the show... no. JaGa^talk 07:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many reasons to edit this article: The list of merchandise is larger than the article on the subject matter. The only citation for the merchandise is an Amazon link, which isn't independent from the subject matter since they are profiting from it. There are indications in the article why the merchandise itself is notable. At the end, it would take a fundamental rewrite, and afterward, you would still be left with an article that is more ad than info, with no rationale for including. A list of products being pushed into the eyeballs of children is not inherently notable, and certainly not without coverage from INDEPENDENT sources. Rather than bludgeon the point, suffice it to say that there just isn't any encyclopedic value to a list of stuff for sale if that is all the article can ever be, like this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, directory, or advertising platform. see WP:NOT Dzlife (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many articles suggested for deletion here as a promotional sales catalog are actually suitable descriptive articles, or capable at least of being editing into such articles, but this is a good example of what is outside any reasonable boundary for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and almost certainly not capable of being improved sufficiently. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P Chips Frauds

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

Attack page, designed to denigrate the companies mentioned in the article. I don't believe this is salvageable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users commenting in this discussion might also want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-Chips Scandals, which are related. lifebaka++ 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify. Companies going bankrupt? In a global recession? Corporate corruption? Not quite notable as a concept in and of itself. Add in minimal sourcing, extreme POV commentary and this is simply beyond salvage. There might be something there as a concept, but this would need to be hammered back to a stub and re-written from scratch. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Why wasn't this speedied as an attack page? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete per Col Warden. If someone can source a proper article this is specifically allowed Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-productive activity

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

Orphaned definition article. I suppose this falls under Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY, but since the phrase is self-explanatory, I'm not even sure it qualifies as a dictionary definition. JaGa^talk 04:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a critically important concept in economics and business management that has the potential to be far more than a self-explanatory dictionary definition. The current stub is weak, but the solution is expansion and improvement through normal editing, rather than deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a critically important concept then we should have no difficulty finding some good sources which explain and detail the concept. But, when I look, such sources do not seem to come easily to hand. As it stands, we don't have any acceptable source for this topic. Warden (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current content is wrong and tendentious. Determining what is or is not productive is a value judgement and so requires high-quality sources to avoid violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR. For example, the Marxist concept of non-productive activity would include finance and entrepreneurial activity of the capitalist kind. Or others might say that working on Wikipedia is non-productive because it is derivative and has no financial value. And don't get me started on whether AFD is productive ... Warden (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very weakly. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see this minimal stub deleted. Making this a red link might encourage the writing of a real article here. On the other hand, there's no reason to erase this text from the history of any future article either. Is there a subject this might redirect to, that covers the limited aspect better? That might work as a stopgap. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its not exactly self explanatory, as the Cite I have added indicates. Implications & usage goes far beyond just Economics. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source which you have cited is unsatisfactory. The topic of that passage is homework and the phrase non-productive activity is just used there in an ordinary way, without being a topic in itself. Moreover the author seems undistinguished and his books are self-published. Warden (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another, specifically talking about Economics/Labor by Nikki R. Keddie. The term is well understood and often used is a variety of spheres, even though its nuances are ...shifting. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. I hold such a judgement is closely tied to the worldview of the individual and/or the culture. Which culture are we discussing, BTW? From an employer standpoint, or an employee view? From a gymnast's perspective, or from an accountant's. Context is important. Neither of the applied sources discusses the subject, but both happen to use the exact wording once each. (first source is a self-published book, so fails WP:IRS) User:Colonel Warden is correct above that a much higher standard of sourcing must be applied to concept pagespace, lest we fail the reader by cherry picking during a deletion process, more likely picking low-hanging fruit while the best choices are nowhere in reach and so making the page worse. Here's a better source, but I've seen no secondary analysis. As the page is currently written, entirely subjective, failing sourcing, nothing here to keep and no way of verifying the assertions. BusterD (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a confused OR dicdef. No objection to from-scratch recreation as a useful article, if there is any to be written about this topic. Sandstein 07:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in The Twelve Kingdoms

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

I don't thing a glossary of terms in a fictional works is in the scope of Wikipedia. As it exists, the page also fails to assert any real-world significance. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it can be shown that reliable sources discuss the unique terminology of this fictional work in depth. Current article is unreferenced, so should be deleted unless specific references are identified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is an unsourced list of fictional trivia. Much of it seems to be original research, in that many of the entries are editors' own interpretations and speculations when the primary source doesn't state these things explicitly. Reyk _YO! 21:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How important is defining these terms when it comes to reading the articles on The Twelve Kingdoms? Based on a spot check of a few of the terms, it seems not very much as very few are even used, and the few that are can be explained in its context. That means at the very least, the list is excessive plot details that would just confuse a reader unfamiliar with the series. A list of terms should not exist for the sake of having a list of terms. So I will have to side with deleting this list. Not only do these terms have no real world context, they also don't have any in-universe context either. —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge. I honestly think these glossaries are harmless and a reasonable part of an article - which can then be spun off due to summary style if it gets too long. However, fair enough that Wikipedia has trended against this kind of thing; just no need to delete the page - merge & redirect it so history is not lost. I'll do it myself if nobody else particularly objects (but, unless the page is a copyvio or something, I can't see a good reason not to do at least a minimal merge.) SnowFire (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply SnowFire, why should we merge unreferenced, unverifiable content into another article in main space? We don't keep material because it is "harmless" but instead because the material is verifiable and encyclopedic. If you are so interested, why not userfy the content instead of merging, so that you can search for reliable sources that discuss this content at your leisure? If it's not verifiable, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. So, if you find reliable, independent sources and add them to a draft in your sandbox, you can bring the improved material back to main space. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never edited the article myself, and have no inclination to do so, and user-fying articles shouldn't be just for creating archives (trans-wiking, perhaps). Also calling it unverifiable and unreferenced is incorrect. This is one of my pet peeves back from the original fiction wars of 2007; it's all easily verifiable and referenced - to the primary source. Which IS a problem, but a slightly different one. As usual, you'd want independent sources to prove notability, but something like a glossary inherently wants to be referenced largely to primary sources anyway. And why merge? For the obvious reason, to make the merged article better and Wikipedia's coverage more comprehensive - a glossary is entirely relevant for subjects with a lot of jargon. And even if very little was merged, then history is at least preserved rather than tossed down the memory hole. We obviously differ in our estimations of how valuable this content is, but don't pretend like it's a mystery why others would want to preserve it in some form. SnowFire (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I redirected the article. Not as much to merge as expected, but it's possible a bit more might be mergable in the future, so please leave the history. (I'll close this myself if nothing happens for a bit, but will hold off in case an admin really wants to delete rather than merge.) SnowFire (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be redirecting the article somewhere else in the middle of an AfD discussion. Expectantly when no one else has supported the merge/redirect to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, merges in the middle of AfDs happen all the time. And the debate was about to be closed, anyway, so that was hardly "in the middle." That said, sure, will leave it up to the closer (but a merge is literally harmless unless you absolutely insist on purifying all traces Wikipedia of evil fancruft including the article history, etc.) SnowFire (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this one is not likely to close as merge. Most people have said delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Did you notice that I merged all of one sentence, and that Wikipedia is not largely different whether there is a redirect preserving the history for ease of transwiki / future reference? You've "won" if that's what you're worried about. It's not uncommon to leave histories behind, however, when there's a potential of later improvement, or even just reference (all those Wikipedia pages with "This is inactive but retained for historical reference"). All it takes is one request, since the result is still no article afterward pending a rewrite. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DNC imam controversy for an example that actually was saved by one merge vote vs. a ton of deletes, and is still an article today. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the DNC Imam article, an editor completed rewrote the article. You said that you redirected this page (which doesn't mean merge, it means redirecting without changing the target article. If you want to change the direction of this discussion, rescue the page with verifyable material and see if people will change their mind. Merging will not do that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted and salted due to numerous recreations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle North (voice actress)

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

Non-Notable person, was previously determined during another AfD that Ms. North does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noelle North for the discussion and vote on that particular AfD which resulted in deletion. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost of article previously deleted after an AfD discussion. This version is substantially identical to the version of Noelle North that was deleted in the AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janette Sadik-Khan

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

Non-notable local un-elected official. Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If someone passes WP:GNG (exhibits A, B, C, D, etc. etc. etc.), it doesn't matter if they fail WP:POLITICIAN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An appointed official can be notable if that person meets the general notability guideline. A Google News Archive search combined with the references already in the article shows that this person certainly does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Janette is well known in the urban planning and transportation circles far beyond New York, and has been profiled in several of the larger New York magazines/papers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 17:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as per above. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A clear case of when to not let WP:POLITICIAN cloud your perception of WP:BASIC. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator appears to believe being unelected is grounds for deletion. Not true at all. If she was an official in a small or even medium-sized city then she certainly wouldn't be worthy of an article, but the head of a major department in a city the size of New York is definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a doubt, has sources, and is notable. CapMan07008 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 20:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas de Genova

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF (anthropologist/ethnic studies research professor without tenure whose top article is cited ~200 in Google scholar, in a field were notables get cites in thousands). The claim to notability is based on a statement that is notable only in the minds of a few political organizations and veteran groups. How do I know? As an alternative to deletion I though about moving this article to A million Mogaishus and sourcing it properly, and then realized I would have AfD'd that too. There is no reason to have an attack WP:COATRACK on a BLP, specially one with such serious WP:UNDUE and WP:N issues. Cerejota (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nicholas de Genova is certainly notable for his comments (i.e. A million Mogaisudus) as well as other statements and his current work in Europe. Your statement that his comment "is notable only in the minds of a few political organizations and veteran groups" is a hard to accept. De Genova was criticized by a huge number of Americans and organizations of all strips, not just veteran groups or "a few political organizations" - in fact, his comments drew nation-wide outrage, and was even criticized by opponents of the Iraq war. Also, keep in mind that De Genova was a faculty member at one of the most presitigous universities in the United States when he said this (this is why his statement go so much attention). The sources for this article appear to be valid - and De Genova's subsequent statements in which he defends himself are also provided here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Some, apparently yourself included, confuse notability with notoriety. If we had a wikipedia article for every twit that managed to piss off a significant section of the population, it would never end, we would have moral outrage on daily basis. This is not Ward Churchill who is both notorious and notable. This is some professor who ran his mouth. BLP1E clearly applies. However, the event itself is non-notable, just another filler outrage. SOmeone has to convince me this event meets WP:GNG, caus eI am not seeing, and I see GNG everywhere :) --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep aside from valid reasons given by hyperionsteel, de Genova satisfies WP:PROF criterion 5, so should be prima facie keep: He held the Swiss Chair in Mobility Studies during the Fall semester of 2009 as a visiting professor at the Institute of Social Anthropology at the University of Bern in Switzerland. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Marginal for WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 11, may pass WP:Prof#C5 (although this claim seems rather weak) and some WP:GNG for reactions to his extreme views. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

If the comment meets WP:GNG, then perhaps we should have an article on the comment, not him. It makes no sense to have a BLP that is just a COATRACK for the comments.--Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His million Mogadishus statement isn't the only statement he's notable for. He has also stated (among his other insightful comments) that anyone who's an American Patriot is a white-supremacist; that Columbia President Lee Bollinger is "an apologist of war crime and apartheid;” and that "the only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military." (i.e. he has made numerous controversial statements in public for which he has been criticized for). Likewise, he has also defended his statements. Thus, his desire to see 18 million Americans to die in the Iraq is not the only issue that he is famous for or which is documented in this article. Also, given statements like this, it is not surprising that numerous Americans (not just conservatives and veterans) were eager to express their disapproval.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Again, you miss the point. Those are not claims for notability. There are websites on the interwebs full of declarations of disapproval for similar statements, should we make articles about them all? Is offending the a set of the US population grant you notability? I don't think so.--Cerejota (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was named by many as "The most hated professor in America". Yes, many people have made similar statements, but De Genova isn't just an everyday nut or an anonymous; he was (at the time) a professor at a prestigous university who made public statements which infuriated numerous Americans. In response, many Americans responded by telling him exactly what they thought about his statements. The result was coverage across the nation and was featured in numerous TV shows and newspaper articles. I would argue that all this together meets the requirements for notability.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I understand that, but they are not. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION and WP:BLP1E--Cerejota (talk) 09:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De Genova has made other controversial remarks (before and after the million Mogaisudus remark). But more importantly, he is still a professor (he continued at Columbia for several years before moving to Europe now) and has published several books (for which he has won at least two awards) since 2003. Yes, he is certainly best known for his wish for 18 million Americans to die in Iraq, but he is notable (albeit not as much) for his other works and statements.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'll ignore your false hyperbole (were did he wish 18 million Americans die?), but he fails WP:PROF h-index 11 is not notable for a Anthro/Ethnic studies, and the Chair he held is not a notable chair, at leas tnot in the sence PROF 5 means, this is a temporary visiting professor chair, not a Distinguished Professor chair. --Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how in the world can hyperbole considered false? it's neither true nor false, being figurative. in this case, though, the figure 18,000,000 isn't hyperbole, but quite accurate description of what de genova said: 18 people dead in the battle of mogadishu times a million in the dude's quote. next, i think that h-index is a fascinating measure of academic impact, but from what the article about it in our beloved wikipedia says, no one seems to be claiming that it's definitive for any field for any purpose, and it seems to be agreed that it's only been discussed in detail for physics. also, it's clear from the formula that length of career is a confounding variable to some extent, and this guy is (a) not that old, and (b) has a career trajectory that might tend to lower one's h-index. i mean, who wants to cite the most hated professor in america? how much time does the most hated professor in america have to publish and then politic to get cites? anyway, it seems to me that if we're going to keep using h-index in these discussions in this way we ought to do some external discussion of what number means what in which field, no? the inventor of the measure says that 11 is good enough for tenure in physics at a major research university. do anthropologists publish and write in ways which distinguishes them from physicists? i have no idea, and i suspect that most of us in this discussion don't either, so maybe let's don't fling the number back and forth like it settles something once and for all. it's just one piece of evidence, and no one seems to be sure if it means anything and if it does, what it is that it means. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find three reliable source that say that this is the "most hated professor in America" in a report, not opinion piece, and I will change my !v. I follow war controversies quite closely and and had not heard of this guy until someone who was in Columbia U at the time told me about this in the context of discussing another Columbia professor. The WP:BURDEN of proving this reason for notability rather than notoriety is not met. While it is true that WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason to delete, neither is WP:EXISTS a reason to keep. Your argument that none one will cite this professor because of notoriety is probably true, but it speaks about why he fails WP:PROF. Again, I see a borderline argument for an article on the comments controversy, but I do not see enough notability for a biography. Wikipedia is not a coat-rack to hang controversies, they need be notable, this isn't at least according to the RS I have seen. Am willing to be disabused of the notion but the WP:BURDEN lies who those who want to keep this crappy article. --Cerejota (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to my above statement (i.e. 18 million Americans dead), it is simply an interpretation of De Genova's wish (18 Americans died in the raid on Mogadishu in 1993 (18 x 1 million = 18 million). I'll admit that this is a very literal interpretation of his remark, but it is certainly not "false" and, in this intepretation, is not "hyperbole." Please be more careful before you accuse me of posting false information.
With regards to the "most hated professor in America", it appears the original source was this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education The Most Hated Professor in America - this line was then repeated by other news outlets and across the internet, such as [17], [18], [19] (some of these are not the original articles but are copies that have been reprinted (this event is almost decade in the past)) De Genova himself gives his version of events here.
With regard to your description of this as a "crappy article" I have to disagree with you. This article accurately covers a nation-wide controversy that generated strong emotions from countless Americans. In addition, the article also covers De Genova's other works (e.g. books, academic positions, research) as well as his other highly insightful comments (e.g. his charge that anyone who's an American Patriot is a white-supremacist, etc.). I agree that his million mogadishus remark is what first drew attention to him, but he is still notable for his books, academic and research positions, as well as his other remarks.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete -- in my view he does not meet WP:PROF. The visiting position in Amsterdam doesn't do it, and his h-index is less than 11 (Xxanthippe has apparently overlooked some overlap in the GS entries). There is, then, insufficient evidence of his notability as an academic. The coverage given here to the comments he made that led to "notoriety" undermines the case for an article; at the very least, there is WP:UNDUE weight on them at present, and given his lack of notability as an academic I am persuaded by the BLP1E argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment — ok, the more i think about it, the more i am convinced that while a high h-index is sufficent for satisfying wp:prof#1, it can't actually be necessary. this guy has a book with 271 cites. if he had 11 papers with 11 cites each, his h-index would still be 11, and yet these are quite different cases. look at e.g. ~~Frank Ramsey~~ Frank P. Ramsey, with a GS h-index of 11 (possibly because he died at 26), who wrote one of the most influential papers in the history of combinatorics, as well as seminal work in economics. in fact, GS possibly overstates his h-index, because it has the combinatorics paper listed under a bunch of different titles and seems to be counting it separately. sure, so ramsey died at 26, but what if he'd stopped doing academic work at 26 and went on to become the most hated professor in america? all these arguments would work towards the clearly wrong conclusion that his article should be deleted. i am not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF here, but trying to illustrate why i think that the argument "low h-index implies fails wp:prof#1" is not a useful one without some more nuanced discussion. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR as author of a much cited academic book ( h-index is not useful as a negative criterion: a person who wrote 2 famous papers and 2 only would have a h index of 2 -- its use as a negative criterion is a failure to understand the meaning.), meets the GNG also--the Chronicle article among the many others is sufficient to show that. Sufficiently important to pass ONEEVENT also) DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems clear that the subject passes the notability guidelines (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tala Raassi

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

Lacks notability. Divide et Impera (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was prepared to recommend deleting this article about a bikini designer. A Google search verified, though, that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources because the Iranian religious police gave her 40 lashes at age 16 for wearing a miniskirt to a party where boys were present. She was born a U.S. citizen, and lives in the U.S. now. Meets WP:GNG Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - partly because I am the article-creating user and also simply because it meets WP:GNG, this per coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. you need in-depth coverage. coverage merely confirms she is a bikini designer of Iranian origin and not much more. [20]. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep she's discussed in jakarta, in colombia, and in the u.s., and again in the u.s. (this one is paywalled, sorry). this seems like significant coverage to me under gng: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure how thoroughly that LibStar searched, but I found this profile in Washington Life, this in the Washington Times, this on WUSA, this on NBC's Washington affiliate, this on the Rachael Ray Show, this on Voice of America, this in the Jamaica Observer and this in Marie Claire. Those have much more significant coverage than LibStar indicated and seem more than adequate to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the comment above proves the notability. anyway article needs better editing. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability can be established easily. Apparently the nominator is unaware that there are obligations to carry out checks before nominating an AfD: see WP:BEFORE. Rubywine . talk 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article when doing New Pages patrolling. I do that starting from the back of the unpatrolled backlog, which usually contains the articles that stay mostly in the grey area, and no one has been willing to patroll for weeks. Which check do you feel I didn't go through and how do you determine that the notability can be established so easily on this subject? IMO she is the typical ONEEVENT case: received 40 lashes for wearing a ~~bikini~~ miniskirt in her 16th birthday, so what? For a One event person the rule in wikipedia is that we should cover the event, not the person. How many millions of law infringers do we have to bring to Wikipedia, just because they receive media coverage? Would the fact that she is a designer make her notable? Is she a notable designer by any stretch, or is it only because of those lashes (and this article in wikipedia) that she became famous? An article on Lipstick Revolution is still to be written, and she should redirect (at least until she becomes a truly notable designer) to that article. Until then, a possibility is that this article can be incubated, because IMO it doesn't meet WP:N. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:BLP1E no longer applies, nor does WP:ONEEVENT because the coverage has been ongoing for years after she received 40 lashes for wearing a miniskirt (not a bikini) on her 16th birthday, and the coverage now discusses her more recent activities as a fashion designer, as well as in the context of the earlier incident. Accordingly, the extensive coverage in reliable sources identified in this debate shows that she is notable now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for what? She should satisfy something in this section to qualify as a famous fashion designer. Not everybody who designs costumes for Miss America or Miss Universe needs to be in Wikipedia.Divide et Impera (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from WP:ONEEVENT: " In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." Emphasis added. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that that quote can be used a person needs to have played a major role in a minor event. Wikipolicy adds that In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself. Such event is random in Iran and enforcement of Sharia law is more relevant than an individual, such as Tala: Tala herself is becoming famous only because in the West Sharia law is very little known. The only way she should be mentioned in wikipedia is within a Lipstick Revolution article: still to be written. That concept too is much more important than Tala. Divide et Impera (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia has been well-known if not thoroughly understood among educated Westerners at least since the time of the Iranian revolution in the late 1970s. As for Tala Raassi, she meets the notability guidelines for the English Wikipedia for reasons stated above and repeated above - significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Others subjected to Sharia may not have received such coverage and are therefore not notable by Wikipedia standards. We don't delete articles about notable topics because some editors think that other topics without articles are even more "important". If you think the other topic is important, Divide et Impera, please feel free to write the article. I am sure that it will be informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Air Mauritanie. Courcelles 20:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Air Mauritanie hijacking

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

Whilst it did receive a little attention in the media around the time, WP is not a news service, and since the incident I can't find anything which gives the hijacking lasting notability. The incident occurred, the media reported, and then it was quickly forgotten about. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The hijacker was incapacitated and captured. There were only minor injuries among passengers and crew. This incident (fortunately) had no historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Air Mauritanie article. Although not notable enough to sustain a stand alone article, it was a hijacking and should be covered. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect per MJ. Haus^Talk 22:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 20:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM Faruque

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

~~The subject lacks notability for WP:ACADEMIC~~ Divide et Impera (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I normally stay away from AfD debates on academics. However, I am concerned about systemic bias when dealing with a third-world academic whose specialty is cholera. That's not a current mainstream interest, I suspect, of western medicine. Accordingly, I ask that editors who have expertise in evaluating the notability of academics take a careful look at this article. Is this possibly a case where ignore all rules might apply? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to ignore the rules. It passes the rules by miles. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per analysis by Xxanthippe, In ictu oculi, David Eppstein, Nsk92 and Lambiam. Thank you for reassuring me that my "hunch" was well-informed and correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a couple of minutes of casual clicking indicated clearly notable, just a bad attempt at starting an article, not even a ref footer or DEFAULTSORT. Added material from book on superbugs establishing primary notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) (suggest move to Shah Faruque.)[reply]
I've moved the article to Shah M. Faruque, which appears to be the form used most often. --Lambiam 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find a GS h-index of 35, excellent for even a highly cited field and a stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1, also appears to pass WP:Prof#C2 and WP:Prof#C3. Incomprehensible nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure of the significance of the TWAS award, but the pass of both WP:PROF#C1 and #C3 appears clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fellow of a national academy of sciences, TWAS award, high citability - certainly enough to WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: The reasons given in the deletion nomination were properly addressed by these edits.--Divide et Impera (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Marie Dupuy

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

~~The subject lacks notability under WP:ACADEMIC~~ Divide et Impera (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the facts stated in the "Life" section of the article are being questioned, it looks to me that he has held sufficient positions at a series of academic institutions, to which we can add his roles as an international jurist (documented in the article, in the external links and in a Google Books search). AllyD (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I added some references and information on the notability of Mr. Dupuy that I hope underline the reasons why I created the article. Kelsaab (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Agree with the above: the subject seems to have played an important role as a jurist and visiting scholar.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: this seems a clear keep per notability that the subject has per se and for these improving edits. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Ip

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason for proposed deletion: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, WP:HAMMER. (For those not familiar with video game terminology, IP (short for intellectual property) is the term used for an untitled video game.) Singularity42 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There are no sources whatsoever to support the contents of this article. It looks nothing else than made up, and all related contents, along with the article itself, should be removed as soon as possible. – Game-Guru999 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New Ip is a phrase, not the name of a video game. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Completely unsourced. Consists only of speculation. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 12:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of the Rock Hill, South Carolina area

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

Same concerns apply here that were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Hill, South Carolina Area--there is no credible evidence that there is a three-county metropolitan area centered around Rock Hill. These counties are indeed part of a metropolitan area--the Charlotte metropolitan area. Therefore, this page is WP:OR synthesis. Blueboy 96 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasoning in the other referenced AfD debate. This is not a recognized metropolitan area, and for consistency, such articles should be limited to areas recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rock Hill isn't the center of a metropolitan area, and even if it were the area probably wouldn't deserve a separate article on its climate. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't imagine anyone searching for this particular article. However, someone put alot of work into gathering this information, and I would be all in favor of merging the information into a broader article, such as the page for Rock Hill itself, or perhaps the articles on the three counties covered. - MolotovH 15:21, 01 September, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.87.20 (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LibRESys

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA so possibly spam/promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be notable third-party coverage on search engines, nothing on Google News. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Barnes (producer)

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

Asserts notability as a producer, but I can't find any biographical sources. It's entirely possible for a producer to work with notable artist but not be notable himself — there is literally NO biographical info to be found anywhere, and I've searched high and low with various keywords. "David Barnes" + "Conway Twitty" turned up only Barnes' name being listed in directories. "David Barnes" + "Nat Stuckey" turned up no results, as did "David Barnes" + "Margo Smith". There is NOTHING on this guy. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so if you say "keep, he worked with notable singers", I'll have to trout some sense into you.

Also it should be noted that the article is currently sourced entirely to blogs and commercial listings for albums, and a user Davbarne (talk · contribs) created the article, so there is very high COI. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The article was also created out of process, as the user moved it from AFC to article space even after it was declined at AFC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the above, I am user Davbarne, and in regards to the COI, I am related to the producer and am responsible for monitoring references to him on the web including Youtube, Wikipedia, ASCAP.com, Billboard, etc. I created the article because I found his name referenced in literally dozens of wikipedia articles for producing, arranging, and recording, but no article existed for him. In the case of Conway Twitty, wikipedia articles did already exist for his predecessor Owen Bradley, and the producer that followed him Ron Chancey. Based on this, and the numerous references to his name in Wikipedia, I created the article. The article was initially rejected due to a lack of external references, so once I added the eight external references, I re-submitted it for review. At the time, the review process seemed to be substantially backlogged, so after a week of waiting, I moved it into production given the only objection in the initial refusal was references. I've attempted to source references from a range of websites, included photographic evidence then and now. I would assume that wikipedia would want to have information as complete as possible on every subject, and there are literally hundreds of search results available on Google and Yahoo search associating David Barnes with Conway Twitty, Nat Stuckey, Margo Smith and others such as Mo Bandy and Roy Clark, I chose only some of the most complete. If you can make constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, we would certainly do all we can to comply. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davbarne (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)173.37.200.6 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no way to verify the biographical information outside the fact that you submitted it yourself. Word of mouth is not a source, nor is "but I'm related to David Barnes". The current sources are merely directory listings that only say that he produced such and such, and one of them is a personal blog which is generally not considered a reliable source. Another source is just you being name-dropped in an ad. The sources have to be substantial — not just the single lines in directory listings, as is the case now. It's okay if the sources are offline, as long as they give direct mention that amounts to more than just "David Barnes produced X", and ideally, biographical info on him. Notability is not inherited from working with otherwise notable people. I will grant that his production career being back in the pre-Internet days might limit things some, but if you know of any newspapers/books/magazines that gave extensive information on HIM, then that should fly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can provide a list of offline publications, some of which are cataloged in an online format, but not the content of the article that provide biograhical information on him. I do have a greater amount of biographical information available on David Barnes, along with other links to other published materials that are available on the web, but to this point I was primarily attempting to provide information and background to support other existing pages on Wikipedia that reference his name. What is the best way to provide that additional information - should I provide it here, update the article, or simply provide a list of offline sources by e-mail? Should I also provide the additional background information? For example, Conway's son, Michael Twitty (currently in branson) recoreded one of his song's on his most recent album and it is available for download on itunes and amazon.com, but writer information for the album is not published on the web, you'd have to buy the album and read the liner notes for example. I'll provide whatever is useful in whatever format makes the most sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davbarne (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper articles can be cited with {{cite news}}, magazine articles with {{cite journal}}. I know who Michael Twitty is, but it wouldn't be a relevant mention since Michael himself doesn't have an article and isn't likely to. Just add the newspaper/magazine references yourself to the article by citing the newspaper name, article name, writer and date. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance. I'm assembling a more thorough biography and references this week and will begin updating the article by the end of this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davbarne (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 nymets2000 (t/c/l) 01:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this individual to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I'm a frequent user and new contributer to Wikipedia, I certainly want to comply to whatever rules, regulations, and standards of notoriety support the integrity of the site and its content. As I indicated earlier in the thread, what prompted the article creation was numberous references to David Barnes (producer) in other Wikipedia articles including:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Take_It_Away http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_Darlin%27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_May_Never_Get_to_Heaven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27d_Love_to_Lay_You_Down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Stuckey

When I reviewed these articles, I noticed that Mr. Barnes predecessor as a producer (Owen Bradley) has a page, and his successor (Ron Chancey) also has a page. In the case of Ron Chancey's wikipedia page below, it is essentially a one line description and a pointer to a defunct web page that is no longer registered is seems. There is far less information on the web and in publication on Mr. Chancey than available on Mr. Barnes, so in the spirit of understanding "Why does that page exist if this page should not?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Chancey

Based on the above, I created a page for Mr. Barnes and provided information in support of the articles referenced above, so that if someone reading those articles wanted to click on the David Barnes in those articles, they could. If it does not make sense to provide the added level of backgound on Mr. Barnes for someone visiting the above referenced articles, the article can be deleted. I don't believe providing this information to the public in this format detracts from the information base of Wikipedia, but I will defer to the better judgment of the most frequest editors/admins. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davbarne (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There still aren't any substantial sources. The amount of information is irrelevant; the content of other articles is irrelevant. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said, the only sources I've found are one-line mentions, which are not sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks for the input. I'm in favor based on the above of deleting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davbarne (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puedes Contar Conmigo

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

Unlikely to develop beyond a stub. Searching for the song title yields nothing to suggest it is a particulary notable song except for its #1 chart ranking in Spain and Mexico, which I can't even confirm MadCow257 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand my research on the charting history, though I am disputing both notability and that there is "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." (WP:NSONGS) Here is what I have found. Claim:

1 in Spain - I see this referenced on the internet in several places, but cannot find it on the actual chart. A song of the name but by a different band (Mägo de Oz) did chart highly on PROMUSICAE Link
1 in Mexico - No, because AMPROFON does not chart singles.
5 on US Billboard Latin Chart - Yes. Link MadCow257 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lo Que te Conté Mientras te Hacías la Dormida. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because of #5 position on a Billboard chart. Some coverage here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lois Lowry#The Tates Series. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The One Hundredth Thing About Caroline

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

nonnotable novel Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 00:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per Whpq. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to Lois Lowry#The Tates Series as a possible search term? Edgepedia (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does something that averages 2-8 views per day need a redirect? NLinpublic (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as they are cheap. If it is being looked up 8 to 10 times per day, then it would seem to be a perfectly useful redirect rather than leaving a reader hanging with absolutely no information at all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or at least no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antenna Structure Registration

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. The content of this article is non-encyclopedic retelling of administrative rules adopted by FCC. Renata (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add: apparently created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Telecommunication Policy Analysis (Johannes Bauer). Feel bad now, but the article is still non-encyclopedic. Renata (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs improvement to become more encyclopedic, but that doesn't have anything to do with the notability of the subject. The article discusses a significant US federal regulation, and there's certainly no shortage of sources that have discussed the topic at one time or another. Zachlipton (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, little encyclopedic content or claim to notability, orphaned. Hairhorn (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Zachlipton. Looks like an important regulation.SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so we don't re-publish regulations and statutes, no matter how important. That said, if the article is rewritten to discuss the regulation, its impact, effect, and other related aspects, then it would be acceptable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be improved, why argue for deletion?--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT nymets2000 (t/c/l) 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin you may want to check the above editor's talk page in deciding the weight to assign their comment. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note At this time the article was moved to Antenna Structure Registration in the United States.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The regulations appear to be notable as evidenced by a search of Google books. The article would benefit from being rewritten to say less about which forms to fill out, and more about the reasoning behind and impact of the regulations. But that is not a reason to delete it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Stub Notability isn't the issue. The issue is that it's not an encyclopedia article and would need to be scrapped and completely rewritten to become one. Perhaps the lead could be salvaged, but that's about it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a definition of non-encyclopedic somewhere? --Kvng (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic is an old discussion. Usually people are referring to WP:Not, and there is a common understanding that non-encyclopedic means not-notable. In short it is material regarded as of being of trivial or limited interest, and if we started to include such material then Wikipedia would become swamped and would cease to be of value as a readable summary of human knowledge. In short, if we included everything we become the internet. We are not the internet, we are an encyclopaedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the very helpful link. Unencyclopedic has an ambiguous meaning. Unencyclopedic by itself is not valid justification for deletion. We need to know why you consider it unencyclopedic. --Kvng (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article is currently a retelling of regulations and therefore not up to WP standards, the subject is notable and the article can be improved to be sufficiently encyclopedic. --Kvng (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — being unencyclopedic (a fuzzy test in itself) is not justification for deletion. -- samj _in ^out 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Non-encyclopedic" means not suitable for Wikipedia for whatever reason, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia we are talking about. But that the content is presently non encyclopedic does not mean the topic is necessarily so, and, the article can be edited appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News 5 (Belize)

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

A non-notable local newscast. Joe Chill (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Great Belize Television. Not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. --Slashme (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 nymets2000 (t/c/l) 01:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DARE Championship

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

This is an article about a new MMA organization that has promoted one event. The article's only source is the organization's homepage. The subject clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are the only events promoted by this organization and the subjects are not notable because they are either routine sports coverage or haven't happened yet:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable events by a non-notable organization that fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say No Classic

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

Non-notable basketball summer league that (vaguely) claims "is recognized as one of the top NCAA sanctioned summer leagues in USA." No source provided for the statement, and article fails GNG and PRIMARYSOURCE anyhow. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I never heard of it before, but it gets extensive coverage in the Los Angeles Times, plus its been described as a "summer-league staple" by ESPN, an "important forum for college athletes" by The New York Times, and "a premier summer college league" by Yahoo! Sports. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article is now, it still doesn't warrant inclusion. Those sources are great, but I have no motivation or interest in expanding it. No references or expansion have been added to the article, so I'm still not convinced it should be kept based on that. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is whether the subject is notable and if sources exist to justify the article. I believe the sources that were added since the AfD justify it. As to its current state and the lack of past effort, WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT say these problems can be overcome and are not a basis for deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass the GNG, as demonstrated by Bagumba. It's a clean stub, and definitely has potential for expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass the minimum threshold for notability, is now very well sourced for such a short stub. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/07/13/economist-slammed-for-concurrent-publications/

[1] ttp://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/07/13/economist-slammed-for-concurrent-publications/

[1]