Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 May	29 May >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

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

This article falls under WP:BLP and in this case I believe that it is not following WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP. It appears to be unfairly negatively biased. In addition over half the negative content has either no sources (404's), primary sources (blogs, tabloids etc) or are provided primarily in languages not applicable to the article and can therefore not be verified. Since this is a living person it is my belief that this article may harm him and his business.

In addition, the article references personal data such as date or birth of individuals that due to poor referencing can not be associated with the article as required by WP:BLP.

The wording used in the article is also speculative and does not reflect the referenced sources in a truthful manner.

In short there appears to be several points that does not conform to WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

The article has been nominated for deletion in the past and consensus at the time was to keep but update. Since then no significant improvement has been made, instead an edit war appears to have erupted where some editors add poorly referenced information and others are removing it. Due to the nature of this article, referring to a living person, I believe it should be deleted as there has been no interest from anyone in creating an article from a neutral point of view and this may harm the individual(s) applicable to the article.

Sweboi (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His notability is obvious[1], and this is not some private person who shuns coverage--he has his own detailed website with extensive biographical information.[2] Deleting this article would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's purposes. If there's contentious material, WP:BLP has remedies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't disagree with the statement on notability. The discussion about that has been had during a previous deletion discussion and it was established that he is indeed a notable person. My point is that I don't believe that the function of wikipedia is to retain articles at all cost. It is obvious that this article is poorly referenced and that facts are misquoted in relation to the source given. In this case I believe that this will harm the person in question. Are we wikipedians sacrificing morals for the sake of keeping an article? It is obvious by looking at the edit history that there is an edit war going on. In one case an editor is saying "There is speculation that......" clearly that is not the way we are to reference our articles. This article needs to be either edit locked or deleted in my opinion. Sweboi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP or similar articles issues are never valid reasons for deletion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, mostly. ;-) --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep and remove most of the really poor writing and PV issues. The man is notable. Collect (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The policy problems (POV/OR/Sourcing) the nominator points out are all valid, and bias is visible in the article edits. I'm sympathetic to the nomination: at the time of this nom it'd been essentially transformed into an attack page (and hadn't been that good beforehand). It's a little-watched biography and seems to be a target for SPAs. The quantity of those who want to add negative material is slightly higher than those seeking to remove it, too. However, the subject is notable. There are steps we can take to handle it better in the future. I've spoken with those adding the problematic material, it's been discussed at the BLP noticeboard and can be taken back there if need be. We can remove problem content, placing {{BLP removal}} & {{Controversial}} on the talk page to alert users to the appropriate standards. And we can semi-protect it—long term if necessary, after the article's been cleaned up to be in keeping with content and living persons policies, to provide an additional layer of protection. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think protecting the page as suggested by the previous poster is a good idea, especially if interest in keeping the article up to a good standard remains low, making it an easy target. I am happy to assist in cleaning it up as good as I can but the topic is not one of my strong points. 81.5.128.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay. Content currently in 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay is enough for this article; redirect kept to preserve history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus G-EUPC

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

Not notable outside of the 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay, failing WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT. Any useful information can be merged there (which most of it is already). No real need for a redirect as it is an unlikely search term. Contested PROD, removed with request for a wider deletion discussion, so bringing here. Ravendrop 23:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay. Redirect is required regardless of liklihood to preserve history. Wholly unnotable aircraft; only claim to fame is carrying the Torch, and notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay -- only notable for connection to torch relay. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment prior to the AFD, this was discussed at WT:AIRCRAFT#Notability of an aircraft, where it was generally recognized a merge was in order. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, dicussion at WP:Aircraft has already established that a seperate article is not justified. Kyteto (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per above: already discussed in WT:AIRCRAFT#Notability of an aircraft. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I feel the article is unique enough to be of general interest to the public. As a newbie (joined in 2009) I regret I do not understand all Wikipedia's rules and regulations, and as I expect to be outvoted I have made a draft copy (Userification) so code is not lost.--Lidos (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of thousands of specially painted aircraft hardly any of them worth a stand-alone article. Already mentioned in 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay so probably nothing much to merge. MilborneOne (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Buddha

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

Contested PROD. No reliable third-party sources; article fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Sudo Ghost 23:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. No evidence of significant third-party coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not fail WP:MUSIC. Discog which is the prime database of mainly electronic music and disc recordings, releases have them in full: http://www.discogs.com/artist/Space+Buddha It seems they have been around for more than a decade. What are you basing your points on? There are significant other third party coverages too.HunterSilver (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Discogs is not generally considered a reliable source, as it uses user-submitted content. All it really does is confirm they exist and released albums. Same goes for Allmusic. First 10 pages of Google results are download sites, torrent links, and blogs. None are reliable sources, and are not considered "significant coverage". News hits show one article in 2010. The rest are unrelated. DarkAudit (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Discogs in not a reliable sources--- says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.114.81.227 (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because Discogs is a user-built database, and user-submitted content is not reliable, similar to IMDB or open wikis. - Sudo Ghost 15:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also WP:NOT#FANSITE applies. No WP:RS for content; most is from MySpace and YouTube. DocTree (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. a mere existence on discog or myspace does not support notability--Ðℬig XЯaɣ 19:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coste Boy

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

Contested prod that has not been improved. Notability seems unclear and there is hardly any independent referencing in the article. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are minimal and little indication of notability--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Catalan and Italian Wikipedia pages have few additional sources. There are a decent number of google hits, but nothing reliable. PROD was removed without explanation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless notable third party sources appear the article is entirely self referenced from first-party sources. Mkdw ^talk 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Este articulo ha sido creado en diferentes Wikipedias con la finalidad de promocionar a un sujeto que no tiene la menor relevancia enciclopédica. Como Checkuser he detectado y bloqueado 22 usuarios títeres procurando recrear el material en es-wikipedia. Saludos --Edmenb (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor referencing, article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. →B music ian 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wellspring Healthy Living Centre

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline or, in its capacity as a charity, the notability guideline for organisations; no coverage beyond passing mentions in reliable sources (contested prod) – hysteria18 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources.. Google News Archive found exactly one reliable source - the item already cited in the article, about a men's group sponsored by the centre. Otherwise only passing mentions. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per above, I'm only finding trivial mentions, nothing significant. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barton Hill, Bristol, where it is: this is usually the best solution for articles on lcoal facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even significant enough for merging. Even in content, we're not a directory of every local organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gun Club (secret society)

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

all the links are dead, except one, which mentions this club in passing, and, as evidently, something made up one day by a small group of people, which never took off. even supreme court justices occasionally do nonnotable things. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. There is not much depth of coverage of this organization; apparently, the society has been too secret to get written about enough to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very low coverage. Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely verified, non-notable. Almost by definition, a "secret society" is non-notable. It can't be both secret and notable. (The article even admits "little is known about the secret group.") --MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE LEGEND 〜Final Live〜 (Heartsdales album)

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and lack of sources to establish notability (contested PROD) Ðℬig XЯaɣ 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this article survives AfD, it needs to be moved to a title without special characters such as The Legend: Final Live, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters. Tilde-like flourishes do not belong in article titles. I take no position as to whether the article should be kept or deleted at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. No reason to leave a redirect. --DAJF (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist. Not notable but no reason not to leave a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, unlikely search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Heartsdales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Shine

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and lack of sources to establish notability (contested PROD) Ðℬig XЯaɣ 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist per standard procedure. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No reason to leave a redirect either. --DAJF (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree that no need for a redirect since the album fails notability. It is already included in the Heartsdales discography. DocTree (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist per Sven Manguard. Just because the topic is itself not notable doesn't mean a redirect shouldn't be provided to another article that contains coverage of the subject. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Stegall

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

I'm concerned about the notability of Mr. Stegall. He doesn't get as many hits as other motivational speakers and most of the content isn't reliable. There is also a lot of content in this that is uncited about a BLP. A possible AfD? (Please do not take this personal!) Sarah (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything online beyond extremely local coverage. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion, slight lean towards keep, but here are some sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance on Chris Treece radio show
Appearance on the Kiner hour radio show
All American Speakers profile (I wouldn't consider this a reliable source; however, the organization works with booking people such as George Lopez, Jeff Foxworthy, etc.; although, it appears like it may be a listing of every possible speaker who ever existed.
Article in Creative Loafing
recruited by the United Negro College Fund
Appearance on "The Brass Ring" online radio show
Master of Ceremonies for Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative 2010 summit

Keep. I have found more creditable sources
Keynote Speaker. Area 8 Project UNIFY® “Spread the Word to End the Word™” Anti-Bullying Summit Brings Unity to the Community Special Olympics
Appearance on the Mother Love. ShowNationally Syndicated Mother Love Show Mother Love
Empowerment Ambassador.National Urban League I Am Empowered Ambassador National Urban League — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonehedge54 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Stonehedge54 and I. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But are those reliable sources? Sarah (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I very emphatically do not consider the sources reliable for notability. They are essentially all in the nature of mere listings or press releases. allamericanspeakers.com in particular doesn't show notability, and I am not even sure of reliability for the facts in a BLP. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search finds self-referential listings, social media, and (of course) this article. Google News Archive finds a few mentions in the Charlotte Observer, otherwise nothing. Way short of what is required for notability, which needs reliable sources ABOUT the subject, not just quoting or mentioning him. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the Oxford Union

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

This article fails to establish the notability of individuals which are listed (see also notability requirements for lists of people). Lists of people "should have Wikipedia articles" according to Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people, and the article also fails to establish the criteria for inclusion. Qu e ntin Smith 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Completely misguided nomination. Like it was the last time.[3]. To reiterate The criterion for inclusion is clear: it is what the article is called. No ambiguity. As for notability of past members, certainly many more recent enties are not notable yet: go back a few years & its stuffed with blue links.TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a list containing a large number of notable people. Due to its length, it's reasonable to have this as a spin-off article from Oxford Union. As for the claim that it "fails to establish the criteria for inclusion": it's a list of people who have held a specified office in a specified and notable institution. How much clearer do you want? --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. However, this should not be interpreted in the future as implying that everyone who has been a president of the Oxford Union should be considered notable enough to warrant an article of their own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Good faith creation; when created, guideline had not yet required individual sourcing (last stable version) which has been edited 500+ times since; should remain for eventual improvement. Dru of Id (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula: it's a legitimate spinoff from Oxford Union and that basis a complete list can & should be maintained, including persons who are not otherwise notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As a collection, the subject matter is considerable by all notability list standards. Mkdw ^talk 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably-unnecessary-to-add-a-"keep"-by-now keep The Encyclopaedia of Oxford (1988, ISBN 0-333-48614-5) has few lists of people relating to the university: just the MPs for the university constituency (back in the days when there was such a thing), its Chancellors, its Vice-Chancellors, and the Presidents of the Union since 1900. A pretty clear indication that the office of President of the Union is a legitimate subject for a stand-along list on WP. Whilst not everyone of them is notable in WP terms, most of the historic ones are and increasing numbers of the more recent ones will get an article in due course, like them or loathe them! (Disclosure: I was a member some years ago, and so probably technically still am, but I'd just use the bar once or twice a term and took no part in the Union or its activities beyond that). Bencherlite ^Talk 14:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone through the list with my copy of the book I mentioned, adding row-by-line citations, checking the names and found quite a few about who we already had articles (and a few more who we should have articles about). Bencherlite ^Talk 07:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might be a double-jeopardy bad faith nomination since the subject and substance of the article has not changed and this is the same nominator as the first AfD. Mkdw ^talk 03:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National security hermeneutics

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

Original research by the author; no notability whatsoever (no Google/Google Scholar/JSTOR hits). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsecurology, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biogeonergydeterminism method. Psychonaut (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. And 'Hermeneutcs', like 'paradigm', is generally a warning that bullshit follows.TheLongTone (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. If it was a "scientific discipline" it would probably produce more than 0 hits in Google Scholar. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised I didn't know until now that Google could return a negative number of hits. EEng (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic original research. No reliable sources can be found online, and the books cited are not notable, so it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom. Also, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since the nominated articles are just verbose definitions, not encyclopedic articles. DocTree (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously out there.FeatherPluma (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. c;ear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Simeon

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

fails WP:BIO. does not have indepth coverage except one article and the 1 gnews hit [4]. simply being a headmaster doesn't guarantee you an article. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Doon School. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator; Articles have to start somewhere. Cannot solely rely on Gnews hits for notability. --Merlaysamuel : Speechify 09:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveat: does anyone know if the obit at the Hindu is paid or written by the staff? It mostly reads like a staff obit, not paid, but I'm a little unsure. If it's a staff obit in one of India's biggest papers then it's a definite keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all above and The Hindu obit, Michael Scott Cuthbert this obit is definitely staff obit. (I am from India and regularl read The Hindu) :) --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A couple of newspaper obits and the fact that he was the headmaster of four important schools in India is marginally notable. --regentspark (comment) 18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - India is already hideously under-represented in WikiBios. Such articles should be encouraged. Eric simeon, despite heading some of the most famous Indian schools, had a distinguished army career. True notable people like these always seem to be left out on Wiki! --Mussolinispas (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how WP:BIO is met. Under representation of Indian bios is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tow talk 02:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a Islam in Kuwait

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

Completely unsourced Ilikecod (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 20. Snotbot t • c » 06:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So source it. We don't delete articles just for that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that a lack of sources is, by itself, a weak reason to delete an article about a notable topic – and the topic of Shi'a Islam in Kuwait undoubtedly is notable. However, minimal-length articles, like this one, generally should be expanded or merged elsewhere until there is sufficient content to justify a split. Unfortunately, that is not a viable option since the lack of sources means that none of the article's meager content is useable, either for expansion or merging to Islam in Kuwait.
That leaves three options: rewrite, redirect or delete. If anyone is willing to rewrite the article from scratch, it could certainly be kept; however, anyone thinking of doing so should consider adding the content to the article Islam in Kuwait. The page could be turned into a redirect but a red link might be more useful, insofar as it encourages article creation. If the page is redirected, it should be deleted first to hide the likely copyright violation that is preserved in its history. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was redirected and the AfD closed by the nominator, and then closed procedurally by an uninvolved editor. I've reverted both actions. I've no doubt that the redirect was done in good faith as a compromise, but the outcome of a deletion discussion should not be decided and implemented by the nominator, especially when no one else in the discussion has argued for that particular outcome. I don't mind the article being converted into a redirect, though I've noted my preference for leaving it a red link, but it should be done after the article's page history (which contains a probable copyright violation) has been deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shi'a Islam in Kuwait is a significant enough topic to mention on its own, given the size of the Kuwati Shi'a population, and the effect of Shi'a - Sunni differences on Kuwait's history and in comparison to the effect of Shi'a - Sunni differences in the surrounding areas. This article desperately needs expansion, but it is a topic worth an article. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the topic, but I'd say that the article needs quite a bit more than just expansion. It needs to be written entirely from scratch since none of the existing content – what little there is – is usable, being that it is unsourced and imprecise ("30 to 40%", "20 to 40 ... mosques"). It even contradicts the figures provided in Islam in Kuwait. In other words, I don't disagree with you that an article should exist, but why keep content that is unusable for any future article? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Problems with the article as it stands are not grounds for deletion. If it lacks sources, find sources and add them. Graham E. Fuller, Rend Rahim Francke (2001). The Arab Shi'a: The Forgotten Muslims. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312239564. has a 19-page chapter on the subject, the first 17 pages of which are available in the google books preview of the book, so you ought to be able to source most of the article from this if you want. JulesH (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't say that there are 400 to 600 hussainias and 20 to 40 mosques or that they live in Kuwait City. It also doesn't say that they came from Iraq, Iran and Bahrain. Ilikecod (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I cannot find any references that say that. As a matter of fact, there are widely-varying estimates of the percentage of Kuwait's population who are Shia (anywhere from 15% to 40%). I did find a source for the 30% figure. I also found a source stating origins of the Shi'a population, and modified the article.Keep.Marikafragen (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic itself is clearly notable, and AFD is not cleanup. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in The West Wing. Also, the nom is correct; the plain Kate Harper should be a dab since there is a notable living person with a similar name. I'll fix that shortly. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Harper (The West Wing)

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

Nominate for deletion This has been unreferenced and tagged for notability concerns for 5 years. There is nothing in it to make it clear that the character deserves its own entry. I think Kate Harper should be a dab between a link to the relevant section of List of characters in The West Wing and Kate M. Harper. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 20. Snotbot t • c » 20:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close- As wrong venue. Nomination rationale doesn't meet Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, but falls under Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to List of characters in The West Wing, and a hatnote/redirect at Kate M. Harper can guide readers who've gone off course. Dru of Id (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly rewrite as a dab between the two names. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the title — no opinion on keeping the article, but if this is not kept as an article, it's a likely enough search target that it should be redirected to the character list. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trout some people over getting lost in bureaucracy. AfD is a perfectly good place to disuss whether something should be deleted or merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. And do the same with all the West Wing character articles. In 20 years someone is going to shake their head when seeing this articles. Articles about fictional television characters that the overwhelming majority of people will say 'huh' when asked who they were....William 00:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not temporary. Strong oppose to any general proposal to merge fictional character articles across Wikipedia without considering the notability of the individual subject. If the subject of this particular article doesn't meet WP:GNG, then sure merge, but to suggest merge just because you personally don't think anyone will be interested in the subject in a distance future is just not a valid reason. -- KTC (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability is temporary in real life lets not kid ourselves. Some fad notable in its day, and characters on this six-years ago cancelled television series on this moderately popular show never had the popularity on the level of a fad, are all but forgotten after a period of time passes....William 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say a show that was broadcasted in over 20 countries and which won 3 Golden Globe Awards and 26 Emmy Awards among others are more than just a moderately popular show, but that's just me. Anyhow, that doesn't matter in terms of whether a subject meets the criteria for inclusion on the English Wikipedia. If we go by your standard, most of the articles on Wikipedia can be deleted including pretty much all of those on historical subjects. KTC (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Certainly a major show, but not a major character. But i want to point out that WilliamJe's comment has things essentially wrong side uyp.: in 20 years people indeed are not going to know who the characters are in the immediate way most of use know now as part of out surrounding popular culture. when they come across a reference to them, and want to find out, they will turn to an encyclopedia than includes popular culture --popular culture not just of the period when we started writing it, but of all periods, early and later. That's what encyclopedias are good for; that's why we care about writing one, that;s why we care about improving its quality and preserving it. If all we cared about was what matters to us at the moment, this wouldn't be much of a project. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Maratrean (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in The West Wing#Situation Room. The character name, role (brief), actor name, and appearances (again, brief) would be more than sufficient in the list. The remaining material is exclusively unsourced fan oriented and not notable. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or Delete, or Merge) to the list of characters article. FWIW I would support doing the same for most articles about supporting characters, across all media. - Frankie1969 (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and summarize as a compromise. Not enough objective evidence to WP:verify notability so a stand-alone article is inappropriate. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puebla Air Lines

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

I can't find any reliable sources that would indicate that this airline passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If you can't find any reliable sources, that definitely means it should be deleted because it's not notable enough to even have significant coverage in reliable sources. The author has had nine days to add sources but has not done so. —Comp dude¹²³ 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs better sources but images of 727s XA-ASS and XA-PAL on airlines.net show them in Puebla Air Lines colour scheme although they indicate they were still operated by TAESA for Puebla. Searching for Pal Aerolineas Sa De Cv bring up lots of sources including some US DoT documents. Appears to have been allocated ICAO "LPA" MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out the history of this article, the article was created at:

2012-05-05T22:01:06, and after one edit at
2012-05-05T22:12:15, was nominated for deletion at
2012-05-05T22:31:30‎, or 30 minutes and 24 seconds after the article was created. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was because the article was deleted in the past, after I had proposed it for deletion via WP:PROD. When the current article was created it showed up on my watchlist, and I saw that it looked pretty similar to the previous article, and was unsourced. As I had already searched for sources the previous time, I nominated it for deletion quite quickly after I noticed it. Have a look at the deletion log to check. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two airplanes alone attract third-party attention. Each of the below domain names have at least one dedicated web page:

A search on [inurl:"XA-ASS"] finds:

airliners.net
planepictures.net
abpic.co.uk
jetphotos.net
aerotransport.org
myaviation.net
yakfreak.aviation.at
flugzeugbilder.de

Likewise, [inurl:"XA-PAL"] finds:

airliner.net
planespotters.net
planepictures.net
aerotransport.org
flyteam.jp

Unscintillating (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Comment. Thanks to MilborneOne for tracking down the Spanish name. Using the above links I managed to find what looks like substantial coverage in this book, though I can't seem to bring it up using snippet view. Here's the excerpt I saw from the search page:
- Pal Aerolíneas, SA de CV Fue una empresa fundada en 1993 en Puebla, desde donde voló a México, Zihuatanejo, Mérida y Villahermosa con un avión Boeing 727. Desapareció en 1995. Rutas Aéreas Costeñas, SA, (RACSA). Tuvo su base
- And translated using Google Translate: Pal Aerolineas, SA de CV was founded in 1993 in Puebla, where he flew to Mexico, Zihuatanejo, Merida and Villahermosa with a Boeing 727. He disappeared in 1995. Air Routes coastal, SA, (RACSA). Was based
I'm not sure if this continues for any length, but I think we can probably assume this counts towards notability. If anyone can find another decent source then I'll gladly concede that this airline is notable. I'm afraid that listings in books of acronyms or pictures of the company's aeroplanes don't really qualify, though, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the references that have been added to the article. (I should have probably checked for that before I wrote my previous comment...) I think these sources all fall foul of WP:CORPDEPTH though - the FAA code change notice is just a few entries in a list with no prose, the airlineinfo.com source is a reposting of a routine document about requesting permission to have flights go to the USA, and I couldn't find anything at all about Puebla Airlines in the Justia source. I'm not saying that there aren't more reliable sources out there that have significant coverage, just that these aren't them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 15:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect per this discussion (non-admin closure). -- Luke (Talk) 01:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prom Night at Hater High (One Tree Hill episode)

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG. No indication of notability. If anything, a redirect should be created to One Tree Hill (season 4). -- Luke (Talk) 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, until and unless sourced appropriately. LuK3, did you try merging it yourself before bringing it to AfD? If you don't actually want it deleted, just redirected, I encourage folks to only bring a merge or redirect here after they've BOLDly done it and been reverted. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't see this discussion. Since the article is almost all a plot summary, I'll create a redirect to the main season page. -- Luke (Talk) 01:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May become notable when it is released; if so, the article can be recreated then. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo (Never Shout Never album)

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

Yet-to-be-released album by Never Shout Never. It fails GNG and music notability guidelines, as well as falling into WP:TOOSOON. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It could become notable when it is released and has more sources, but for now it is too soon. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- currently fails CRYSTALBALL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Screwed

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

Non-notable mod for Half-Life. No coverage from reliable sources found searching on Google. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found a short blurb at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, and even then it's only a one-paragraph mention in a 10 paragraph article. --Teancum (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Haven't found anything useful to show Notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tacloban. (non-admin closure) Tow talk 02:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barangays in Tacloban

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

List of Barangays in Tacloban: A list of 138 numered bangarays without further information. It doesn't meet GNG. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tacloban. I think this wouldn't be useful as a stand-alone list and the parent article can still accommodate it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely selective merge to Tacloban - specifically, move the sentence "The City of Tacloban is divided into 138 barangays,[1] each having its own government" there and delete the rest. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple mention of the number of barangays in the main article should be enough. What is there to merge, aside from that? Do we really need a separate article for the barangays? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge - some of the wards are sourceable, so they should be included in the city's article. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the material, but the table has problems with formatting. I know I messed it uop. Can someone fix it, please? Bearian (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem? i can take a look at it. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tacloban. List of barangays is standard for every other Philippine city/municipality. In a column format, it is not too long for the main article. No need for redirect. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tacloban. (non-admin closure) Tow talk 02:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mayors in Tacloban

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

Unreferenced list of mayors for some province/state/??. Each name doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Possible hoax. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Tacloban is a city of 200,000 people in Leyte in the Philippines, and it's not a hoax. However, this information could easily be in the article Tacloban. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tacloban is an actual city, and a relatively large one too (200,000 people). Tacloban however is no Manila, Cebu or General Santos., so it doesn't need to be a separate article for its mayors. A merge to the main article should be done instead. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as new subsection to Tacloban. Not too long for main article. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Could use some more expansion, but AFD is not cleanup. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjivan (Microfinance)

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

Non-notable Indian company. Only infobox on the article. No references, no context about what the company does or any other information at all. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Did the nominator check for sources as recommended by WP:BEFORE before taking the article to AfD? A quick Google News search get multiple non-trivial hits. If the article is not speedied for lack of content, it may be fixable. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable company, plenty of sources available. (And I've made it into a legitimate stub so it can't be A3'd.) DoctorKubla (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that many more sources are available in this custom Google News search:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – Just from the custom Google News search I provided above, it is clear that this topic easily passes WP:GNG. Examples include: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn, and although there was 1 other delete !vote, their reasoning does not match the information provided by others WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Karp

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

Article about a young researcher. I'm not convinced the awards mentioned here are sufficient to confer academic notability. Certainly receiving a faculty mentorship award isn't, nor is the minor award from the rather specialized research society to which he belongs. That leaves the coverage in Technology Review; anyone care to weigh in on that? Psychonaut (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell he's not notable per WP:ACADEMIC (assistant prof, no major positions in learned societies, no major awards, though I don't know about his citation index) or by WP:GNG. He's one of 35 people in the annual TR35[9] (how prestigious is it anyway?) and co-leader of a team that invented an innovative bandage[10]. A popular figure at MIT/Harvard Medical School, but probably not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty high citation levels at Google Scholar - including some articles where his name is first or last on the list of authors. I just did a rewrite, wikified the article, tidied up and added some references. BTW a previous version of this article was deleted in 2009 for copyvio, but that doesn't appear to be a problem here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Was it really necessary to nominate this article for deletion less than 10 minutes after it was created? --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "pretty high citation levels"? What are the levels, exactly, and how do they compare to those of researchers already known to be notable? Psychonaut (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking at Google Scholar yourself. There was one in Nature that was cited 860 times (although he was just one of six authors on that); there is one by him and one other author that was cited 175 times; there are six others cited more than 100 times; clearly his work is getting noticed in his field. --MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not at all clear. The absolute citation count means nothing; again, how does it compare against those of other researchers who are already known to pass our notability criteria? Also importantly, what are the numbers after self-citations are discounted? Google Scholar does not differentiate between third-party citations and authors citing themselves in subsequent papers. Keep in mind that the more authors a paper has, the more likely it is to be self-cited. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you about it. I'll wait for other editors, including possibly those who have access to Scopus or h-index calculation, to weigh in. (BTW I note that both your nomination and the "delete" !vote above seem to be based entirely on his "awards" and his position as an assistant professor, and I agree that those don't qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. It doesn't look as if either of you considered his publication/citation record, which possibly could IMO.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW note for those searching: he is usually indexed as "Karp JM" - so that you can distinguish him from others like Karp JA. --MelanieN (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nomination is based on the claims of notability made in the article itself, none of which relate to how his research has been received, either by the scientific community or by the mainstream press. I admit that an exceptional citation count could establish his significance, but without knowing what sort of numbers are typical in his field we can't say whether the papers you found are in any way remarkable. It would help if we could attract to this discussion the attention of someone with the background necessary to make such a determination. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Web of Science confirms the citation counts found by MelanieN (and as usual a bit lower than GS): h-index of 21, 80 listed entries, total citations 2191 (without self citations: 1975), highest citation counts 743 124 109, first author on the two last ones. Note that the second one (124 citations) was only published in 2009, according to the "Essential Science Indicators" this number of citations would put it in the top 1% percentile of all articles published in that year in the field with the highest citation rates (molecular biology & genetics). He's still young, but obviously over the bar of WP:PROF#1 and it looks like there's more to come. Impressive. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added several general-interest (non-technical) links to the article, including this profile of him by the Boston Business Journal. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Per high citation count and newspaper profiles. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable scientist. Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. Basket of Puppies 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the TR35 award gives significant coverage of his work in an important forum, much beyond the average assistant professor. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and many thanks to the editors who found the sources establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are withdrawing your nomination? (The reason I ask: Your nomination counts as a "delete" !vote, so !voting "keep" now means that you are essentially !voting both ways - unless you withdraw the nomination.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there are other delete !votes (only 1, but still), the nomination cannot be withdrawn at this point, but Psychonaut could indicate that he changed positions from "delete" to "keep". Nevertheless, given the voting pattern here, I think we can move for a speedy close of this AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Guillaume2303 said. Where did you get the idea that a nominator speaking against his own nomination counts as !voting both ways rather than as simply changing his opinion in light of new evidence? It's the first time I've heard this particular interpretation of the (not-uncommon) practice. I can't withdraw the nomination from consideration at this point as the opinions haven't been unanimous. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to Wikipedia:Speedy keep, withdrawing the nomination can be a reason for a speedy keep (as Guillaume recommended). I never heard that a nomination can't be withdrawn if there are any delete !votes, but if that's how Psychonaut feels, I respect that. We could ask for a Snow Keep, but I have heard it said there can't be a snow close if the !vote is not unanimous. (I don't find that written down anywhere as policy, though.) Looks like we may have to leave it up for the week. BTW I am gratified to see that other editors confirmed my "gut" impression that his citations were noteworthy. Thanks for your research, which exceeds my ability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Here and here are examples of a nomination withdrawn despite an existing "delete" !vote. Here and here are examples of a nominator striking out their "delete" recommendation to replace it with "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember where I've seen it, but I'm pretty certain that policy does not allow to withdraw a nom if there are delete !votes. Of course, there is IAR... And perhaps Colapeninsula will chante their delete !vote. @Psychonaut: you misinterpreted my comment: I agree with MelanieN that, as it stands, you have both a delete and a keep !vote. An AfD nom is implicitly taken to be a delete !vote. However, given all the discussion on this topic, I think that by now any admin can easily see what your opinion is :-). As for the closing, there's no hurry, this can sit here for a few more days as far as I am concerned. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found substantially the same WoS results as Guillaume: h-index of 21 on 61 papers using the search "Author=(karp j*) Refined by: Institutions=(HARVARD UNIV OR MIT OR BRIGHAM WOMENS HOSP) AND [excluding] Authors=(KARP JS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". Coupled with the Boston Business Journal article, among others, that are about him, it seems there's plenty of evidence for notability w.r.t. WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep on citation arguments above. Nominator should clarify his position. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- What's to clarify? When the article was nominated, notability of the subject was not supported by reliable sources. Now it is, and so I subsequently !voted to keep, citing the new evidence. This practice is not unheard of on AfD (in fact, I've done it myself a few times) and have never seen requests that it be "clarified" before. The subsequent and explicit !vote overrides the implicit one in the nomination. If there have been recent policy or guidelines changes which disallow this, let me know and I'll make whatever changes are necessary to comply with them. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closing this discussion and consolidating, since the article was already part of a compound nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsecurology. See User talk:Psychonaut for further details —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM

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

I don't see any notable information here that isn't already covered in the national security article. The article appears to be a coatrack for the author's own theories. Psychonaut (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natsecurology

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

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

Natsecurology has highly dubious notability (0 Google hits, 0 JSTOR hits, 0 Google Scholar hits). Author of the article appears to be the same author of the idea it discusses.

Re NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM, I don't see any notable information here that isn't already covered in the national security article. The article appears to be a coatrack for the author's own theories. Psychonaut (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I endorse the deletion of Natsecurology, but I am adding NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM to this nomination, as it suffers the same issues—particularly that the author of the article is the author of the idea, and Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Basically an OR essay. I saw the NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM article earlier too, and would also support it's deletion for the same reasons. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both of these articles are structured as though they were dictionary definitions, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both WP:OR Mkdw ^talk 21:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as violating WP:OR, lacking WP:GNG and WP:RS and not suitable WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since they are verbose definitions and not encyclopedic articles. DocTree (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. agree with above and as per WP:ORand WP:NOT#DICTIONARY --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 20:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written OR without any redeeming glimmer. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeonergydeterminism method

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

Highly dubious notability (0 Google hits, 0 JSTOR hits, 0 Google Scholar hits). Author of this article appears to be the same author of the method it discusses. Psychonaut (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original research, novel definitions, or the like, and the creator of this article is on a spree with it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsecurology for two more examples. —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism (at least not in English, maybe it's a translation). Conflict of interest, untranslated section of Cyrillic text, lack of context or explanation, whiff of pseudo-science. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ouch. How many formal and informal reasons are there to delete this? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn; non-admin closure) JulesH (talk)

Contemplative psychology

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

Original research essay Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's obviously not an original research essay as it cites sources such as a book about the topic and is more of a stub than an essay. Some searching indicates that merger with transpersonal psychology may be the best way forward. Warden (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, it was unsourced when I nominated (perhaps a little too hastily). I'll let this run and see what others think. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're doing NPP, please be aware that you're being watched to see how quickly you're pouncing on new articles. Patrolling from the back of the queue is preferred. Warden (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer weeding out obvious crap at the front of the queue. Like everyone, I make mistakes sometimes. I'm not aware of any stipulation that "patrolling from the back" is preferred, though 4 minutes is probably too hasty, I admit. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Re-write and clarification as a proper noun is a vast improvement (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gameframe

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

Original research coining a new phrase. The term is used elsewhere, but not as this article defines it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you think that this term has already been used elsewhere, feel free to provide a disambiguation page. And for what concerns the definition, there is a refererence to the IEEE magazine which is a most reliable source. IEEE make use of this term. -- Akolyth (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

I don't mean that it's been used elsewhere on wikipedia, I was talking about sources. When I ran an internet search the term is used many times, but never in the way you describe it in this article. It's called a neologism. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Again, feel free to provide all the articles which you consider necessary. But for what concerns the use of the term gameframe, you only need to follow the links provided. Moreover, when I run a Google search I obtain a large number of results, that refer to mainframe computing. -- Akolyth (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Provide what articles? What are you talking about? How about instead of requiring me to provide articles showing the subject isn't notable (bizarre) why don't you provide all these sources you keep talking about which apparently back up your position? Of the two sources you used in the article, only one of them even contains the term "gameframe". Remember that the onus is on you to back up what you write, not others. Oh, and you can't !vote twice, so I struck your last one. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. There are four links provided substantiating the article's use of the term Gameframe. And what's more: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/to-probe-further-the-gameframe-guild (which is given in the article) provides ample links to resources on Gameframes. Moreover, before you doubt any IEEE sources you should be aware what IEEE is: IEEE is one of the leading standards-making organizations in the world. Thus, your criticism is rather insubstantial. -- Akolyth (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Hi Akolyth. You should only recommend "keep" or "delete" (etc.) in bold once - have a look at the instructions on how to comment at deletion discussions. I've gone ahead and struck your latest "keep" recommendation. (Note that you're free to make as many comments as you want, however.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IBM System z Keep (see below). We shouldn't have an article on this term per our policy on how to treat neologisms, but there's no reason we can't mention the term in another article, if we make it clear that it is not standard English. (This would probably be done by using quotations.) From these sources the second of these sources[11][12] it seems like the term "gameframe" is only used to refer to the IBM System z, so that would seem the best article to merge to. As this is a specific product, I think we also ought to remove Akolyth's mention of "gameframe" from the Mainframe article, unless anyone can find evidence that the use of the term is a more general one across the mainframe industry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Stradivarius, I appreciate that you wish to keep the text. Although your idea of merging is constructive, I think that the article should remain an article of its own as the underlying architectural concept is somewhat universal. And as you have mentioned the mainframe industry: there's only System z left. IBM are nowadays the only mainframe manufacturer. -- Akolyth (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)
Ah, thanks for telling me that - now that you come to mention it, I can't think of any other mainframe makers who are still around. Still, it doesn't change the policy text about neologisms, and we have to base all our decisions on Wikipedia policy here. If there are any arguments that run counter to Wikipedia policies, then the closing admin is free to ignore them at their discretion. On a related note, you might also want to check out the essay about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius, one should note that the term Gameframe is used by the IEEE (and many others) since 2007. Therefore, it can hardly be considered a neologism as it it no longer new. And what's more: the architectural amalgamation of a supercomputer with a mainframe is a thrilling concept since 2007. Therefore, I still prefer to leave it an article of its own.-- Akolyth (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Right, Akolyth, I accept the one source you've used in the article (the IEEE source), but the article needs more than that. Please, can you provide a few examples from this sea of reliable sources of which I seem to be blissfully unaware? It is definitely a neologism; 5 years' use by one company doesn't make exempt it from such a status. The information is useful and so merging would be a good idea, but keeping it as a separate article is counter-informative because it leads the reader to believe something that isn't true; namely that "gameframe" is a term used generally in the way you describe (which, it appears, it isn't). Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basalisk, I have even provided two IEEE sources. Two further sources (universities) you might like are http://www.ti.uni-tuebingen.de/Projektbeschreibung.381.0.html and http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/cs/proj/WLMproj/zBX03.pdf. However, I fail to see a reason in providing a large number of links. IEEE should be absolutely acceptable (pls follow http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/to-probe-further-the-gameframe-guild for further links).-- Akolyth (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

In English please. Linking to different parts of the IEEE website does not constitute separate sources - IEEE is one source. Also, whilst you may fail to see the need to provide several different sources, it is a requirement of the general notability guideline. Also, I think you'd do well to read the link about neologisms posted above, as it describes how secondary sources which talk about the phrase (rather than merely use it) are required to justify a stand-alone article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, I have now added a Master's Thesis. But the lot of the sources are in German because system z is mainly developed in Germany. Moreover, there are four more (English) references from three different sources which is more than enough. -- Akolyth (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Excellent work, thanks. I still think the information is better merged into the parent article, but I think the sources you've found are great. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the terms 'gameframe', 'game' or 'Taikodom' in that thesis. What does frame offloading have to do with this article? -Rushyo ^Talk 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at p.19ff -- Akolyth (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC+1)

!! Well that's me well and truly taught to not rely on Adobe's search capabilities... -Rushyo ^Talk 15:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with IBM System z - Feel this fails WP:NEO. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" -Rushyo ^Talk 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that per "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." we could consider a rename. Seems a little pointless though, when it'd sit fine in IBM System z. -Rushyo ^Talk 20:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't misunderstand the Gameframe as just a new model of System z. In fact, it is a hybrid platform that comprises both system z and Cell blades. Its hybrid H/W architecture is the key element, thus amalgamating feautures of high compute power and high data throughput at highest reliability. This is a new architectural concept of its own. Therefore, it is not entirely appropriate to subsume the gameframe only under System z when the Cell processors are an integral part, too. I shall add a paragraph on this to the article so that it becomes a little clearer as, obviously, some misunderstandings have occurred. -- Akolyth (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC+1)

Keep in light of new sources and explanation of term as proper, and not common, noun (negating WP:NEO arguments). -Rushyo ^Talk 15:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have changed my !vote to "keep" above. I was confused by the introduction to the article, which claims that "gameframe" is a term, but I see now that it is actually the name of a project by IBM, and so counts as a proper noun, and is not subject to our policy on neologisms. I was also stumped by a weird bug that meant that I only received Google News results in Japanese (I have a Japanese IP). After having found a workaround for this, I found quite a few sources about the Gameframe project, e.g. these: [13][14][15]. Coupled with the book sources I listed above, I think this is enough for the article to be kept. It could definitely do with some cleaning up, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the introductory sentence and polished the article a little bit as was asked for by Mr. Stradivarius. I hope things are now a little clearer. -- Akolyth (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC+1)

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

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

The result was Keep per below discussions although clean up maybe in order (Non-admin closure)--Chip123456 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 21

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance. Covered by routine Primary News sources only. Mt king ^(edits) 09:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only is coverage on Yahoo and other sites apparently typical for kept events, but nom is also yet another out-of-process attempt to delete material that is actively under discussion at RFC and RFC/U, precluding and probably disrupting discussion there, and such attempts are at risk of continuance until they are recognized for the disruption they are causing to such discussion. The issue should be resolved by statements of concerns and compromise, not by random AFDs. Merge to 1999 in UFC events, a new spinout of 1999 in sports#Mixed martial arts, is also possible. JJB 13:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep How about trying to improve the article before just putting it up for deletion? Gamezero 05 17:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mtking has not performed a google news archive search or google book search as required by part D of WP:BEFORE. It states that before nominating an article for deletion, "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."

So based on that, it is clear that Mtking did not search first before nominating this article. This is evidenced by the fact that I have found several sources from books and magazines from the google book search, and I have also found news articles and reviews of the UFC 21 event as a whole through the google news archive search.

Based on this, I feel comfortable deeming this nomination for deletion as faulty. Gamezero 05 20:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is a guideline not a requirement. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is a guideline, and nothing is a requirement. So if you are only going to follow the guidelines you want to follow and ignore the others, then what is the point of following any guidelines at all? Once again, you try to interpret the rules to fit your own agenda. Classic Hasteur. Gamezero 05 02:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does this article need to be cleaned up? Absolutely but I think deletion is premature. This event is notable for two reasons, 1) there were a number of rule changes that were introduced and are now followed by UFC events so this event set future precedent and 2) there was a championship bout. --Boston2austin (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, this event determined the champion of a top league in MMA so it satisfies the notability guideline. BearMan998 (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete as per arguments provided (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryse Selit

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

Not notable.

Claims to notability appear to be: (1) as a entertainment lawyer, her firm has had notable clients, (2) she's published papers, (3) she's appeared on television, (4) she owns a notable house, (this is mentioned in the refs although not the body of entry).

None of this puts her over the bar of notability. (1) is a standard "notability isn't inherited" case. (2) doesn't suggest anything more than an ordinary lawyer, nor does (3) really, the "Dr. Oz" appearance is not related to her work as a lawyer, this appearance appears to be as an unidentified audience member. And (4) doesn't cut it either. Different sub-notable claims to notability do not add up to one notable one. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the submitter of the AfD. Notability cannot be inherited. She worked for some well-known clients, but she fails WP:BIO because she is not significantly more notable than the average attorney. NJ Wine (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO, and notability is not inherited. - Sudo Ghost 17:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not delete for the following reasons: (1) this is not a case of "notability being inherited" because Selit's firm had notable clients, as stated by the submitter. Instead, the celebrity clients mentioned in the article are currently working with or have worked with Selit personally. Selit worked with numerous other celebrities (who are NOT mentioned in the article) including members of the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, WNBA, etc at Proskauer. While at Hogan & Hartson, Selit represented News Corp (Rupert Murdoch) which owns Fox News and other networks as well as numerous politicians and Washingtonians (Hogan is a well-known DC political powerhouse); (2) while Selit has authored numerous scholarly articles, this is only mentioned as way of background. (3) Selit has worked with Zoco Productions and appeared on SEVERAL Dr. Oz shows. The show in question was a 3-day experiment that aired for 45 mins on the Dr. Oz Show (and is intended to highlight the fact that Selit was involved in a fun experiment). Selit has been a frequent guest on other Fox shows, such as Stossel and Huckabee. (4) the fact that Selit owns a historical house is merely background. What is most distinguishable and noteworthy about Selit is not just the fact that she works with numerous celebrities, but her unusual time commitment to pro-bono advocacy. Selit spends about half of her practice on pro-bono matters and, in accordance with Wiki's policy on notability, Selit has been awarded an important award in recognition of her dedication. Selit received an outstanding pro bono award from Sanctuary for Families (prior recipients include Justice Ginsberg, Chuck Schumer, Judith Kaye, Denny Chin, et al). Selit is also affiliated with numerous charitable organizations through her board service. She is a great humanitarian who has shown a substantial commitment to improving the lives of underprivileged people, not just by dedicating a few random hours to pro-bono service but, instead, by dedicating half of her practice to it. This is definitely noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your arguments: (1) Even working directly for a notable individual doesn't make a person notable. For example, a graduate student doing research with a notable researcher is NOT notable, even though the researcher is; (2) A few scholarly articles does not make a person notable. Otherwise every college professor would be notable. See Wikipedia's guidelines on assessing scholarly works; (3)I watched part of the Dr. Oz videos, and she appears to be more of an audience member who was chosen to be on the show than a commentator; (4) While I commend Ms. Selit's charitable work, there is a guideline called Wikipedia:NOBLECAUSE which prohibits using worthy causes or honorable actions as a grounds for notability. NJ Wine (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if there were some specific event or achievement of the subject, about which one could say, "She is the one who _____." Being an entertainment lawyer for a lot of celebrities just isn't distinctive or notable. Neither is appearing on various talk shows. If you're saying that she appeared on several Dr. Oz shows, instead of telling readers the extraordinary thing about her that got her invited, then you know there's a notability problem. The lack of any notable fact is why the article reads like a résumé. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I am a new contributor to Wiki and even though I didn't create this article, I've contributed a lot after it was created. I find NJ Wine's comments pejorative and unhelpful, as a result of which, I may never contribute again. Why provide an eg. of a student when we are discussing a lawyer representing high profile clients, other than to be disparaging?? First, NJ Wine claimed her notability was inherited b/c the clients listed were Selit's firms and not her own. After he was told this was not correct, he came up with something else. We will arbitrate this decision if necessary as a quick review of many of the WP:ALIVE bios makes it evident that the hurdles being imposed here have not been required or met in other cases. According to Wiki's G/Ls, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable...and independent of the subject...If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" or "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." These requirements have been satisfied in the case of this article. Unlike NJ Wine, the comments made by Ben Kovitz are helpful and I am happy to improve the article based on them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmatt123 (talk • contribs)

Struck out duplicate vote from User:Lmatt123, please vote only once. Hairhorn (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lmatt123, I apologize if I was too agressive. I spend much of time on Wikipedia evaluating articles for deletion, and I don't just randomly vote. I read the Maryse Selit article, did a Google search on her, and then reviewed Wikipedia's policies on the notability of people. The article has 9 references, but references 2-8 are not predominately about her, but are instead are compilations of awards, papers, and notices, and include information about many people. Reference 1 is predominately about Ms. Selit, but is not an independent reference. Wikipedia's definition of an independent source states that an material from an employer is not an independent source, and reference 1 is from Hogan Lovells, the firm where she works.

In my previous argument, I provided an example of a student working for a famous researcher to illustrate that a person may have a notable employer or client, but that does NOT make them inherently notable. You state, "We will arbitrate this decision if necessary as a quick review of many of the WP:ALIVE bios makes it evident that the hurdles being imposed here have not been required or met in other cases." Although I understand your desire to compare the Maryse Selit to other biographical articles in Wikipedia, WP:INN states that such a comparison is not a valid argument, since it very possible that other biographical articles should also be deleted. NJ Wine (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lmatt123, welcome to the exciting world of encyclopedia-writing! Sorry your first experience has been so bumpy. It's a whole lot easier if you start with a topic or person for whom you already know an obvious, clear-cut reason for notability: a specific achievement, a specific attribute, something distinctive, unique, and important. Then you can write the article by summarizing what the sources say about that achievement or attribute or whatever it is. It's much harder to start with a topic or person and then search for reasons for notability. May I ask, why have you taken such an interest in the Maryse Selit page? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BenKovitz Thanks for the helpful suggestions, I appreciate it very much and will keep that in mind for future contributions. Ms. Selit works tirelessly on causes I hold dear and individuals that society has forgotten. I am familiar with her work and outstanding pro-bono commitment and believed a Wikipedia article was a good way to document her dedication and achievements. Since the consensus appears to be that a standalone article is not warranted, do you have any suggestions for how this article could be merged? Thanks again for your help. Lmatt123 (talk) 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way to document Ms. Selit's achievements would be to get in-depth articles written about those achievements in the press, or to get a book published about her life and achievements (and some reviews of the book in major newspapers or magazines). Then, here on Wikipedia, we could summarize those sources. Publishers, newspapers, and magazines that exercise a lot of editorial control—meaning that the standard for getting published there is high—are the best sources. See also WP:SECONDARY. Sorry, I don't have any ideas for material in the present article that could get merged into another article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have revised the article to accommodate the suggestions proposed by Hairhorn on my talk page in order for this article to be removed from AfD. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tania4lv (talk • contribs)

All you did was add further to the list of clients of the firm she worked for, but notability is not inherited. Hairhorn (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. These clients have nothing to do with the firms that she worked for and are personal clients of Ms. Selit. I also added various notable cases that she has worked on. The personal data that SudoGhost claimed was missing has also been added. What else would you like included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tania4lv (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just listing clients does not address notability (please see WP:NOTINHERITED). Listing a bunch of awards doesn't by itself provide any notable content. Lots of people have published scholarly articles, but that doesn't make them notable. You'll notice that the article reads like a publicity sheet for Mr. Selit, or maybe a résumé. However, you added something that offers some hope: you said she was involved in "many high-profile cases". If she played a particularly significant role in a high-profile case, like leading it or coming up with an innovative legal argument, that could provide the substance of a real encyclopedia article. Here are a few articles about people with, in some cases, very minor notability, but the basis for notability is clear:

Dale Minami (led the legal team in a controversial case about the Constitutionality of Japanese internment camps in WWII)
Stephen L. Braga (led a legal team that searched for 12 years for evidence that got Martin Tankleff acquitted after 17 years of wrongful imprisonment—and this is just on the border of notability; one could reasonably argue that the Martin Tankleff page should cover this topic well enough)
Iván J. Parrón (the entertainment lawyer who invented the on-line music store)
Linda Coffee (represented Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade)
David S. Kris (poor article, barely notable, but the basis for notability is clear: opposition to warrantless wiretapping)

If you can find a unique, important fact or two like that, you will find overwhelming support to keep the article. Notice that these articles focus on the few things that made their subjects notable; they provide some background info, but they don't try to list every TV appearance and press clipping (though they do contain some fluff, which we should delete). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She was not an official guest as a lawyer on the TV shows. As stated above, who she has as clients doesn't matter and who the people she worked for doesn't matter... the faculty adviser and student is a good example. There is nothing inherently notable about her, so it comes down to references. There are not independent and reliable references that that go into detail about her, so she fails GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Selit is definitely recognized as a notable lawyer in legal circles. She also does a great deal of pro-bono work and serves on various charity boards. She has won a number of awards for her work, including the distinguished SFF award for extraordinary pro-bono service. Wiki guidelines and policy do not set the criteria of Notability in stone mandating that every Living bio must conform to one particular standard. Contrariwise, receiving a significant award alone can satisfy notability (in fact, even repeated nomination for such an award, without winning it, can be adequate). I would recommend that you keep this article, as it only benefits Wikipedia. By way of note (and I'm not suggesting this should influence the AfD decision either way, the view log shows it has been viewed about 1000 times since its addition just 2 weeks ago). Ceylobo (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

While Sanctuary for Families (SFF) is notable and has its own Wikipedia article, I see no evidence from any source that the SFF award is "distinguished", or "significant". My opposition to keeping this article is primarily based on two Wikipedia policies: (1) independent sources and (2) noble cause. As I stated above, all the references about her either only mention her in a very limited manner, or are from her employer, which Wikipedia does not allow as an independent source. I don't see any articles specifically about Maryse Selit in any legal magazines, newspaper, or other independent source. Additionally, many of the arguments in favor of keeping this article contradict Wikipedia's noble cause guideline, which prohibits creating articles about people or organizations because of the subject's good works or good intentions. Maryse Selit appears to be a successful attorney who has done a lot of pro-bono legal work, but that does not make her notable. NJ Wine (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including this article does harm Wikipedia: it's essentially a résumé or publicity sheet for someone without substantial press coverage establishing a clear reason for notability. Including it encourages publicists to use Wikipedia as a way to get publicity for their clients. In this AfD debate, we've already seen the argument, "Other people who fail to meet the notability guidelines have Wikipedia articles about them." Please see WP:FIVEPILLARS. (If someone does find documentation of a specific, notable achievement by Ms. Selit, then all this is moot, of course.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "a significant award alone can satisfy notability", can satisfy does not mean does satisfy. As NJ Wine noted, we don't have documentation that this award is of such significance that it establishes notability all by itself. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do see that the SFF pro bono award is not listed on Wiki (but an article should be created as it is a highly distinguished legal award). Some of the other recipients, as noted in one of the comments above, are US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Federal Judge Denny Chin, Chief Justice Judith Kaye, Chuck Schumer, etc. I appreciate the points you're making but this article should not contradict WP:NOBLECAUSE because the award is only one component of it. Also, there are articles about Maryse Selit in the NJ Star Ledger, NY Law Journal, Robb Report, Metro Corp Counsel Vault Guide, etc. Hope this helps. robertsjoe 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:NOTINHERITED. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for personal attacks. NJ Wine (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: I trust the closing admin will note that all the keep votes appear to be from SPAs.Hairhorn (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again with your accusations, which is clearly against Wiki guidelines. As per my response to your prior comments about SPAs and conflicts on my talk page, this is truly unprofessional and unacceptable behavior on your part. And if you are indeed a senior editor or admin for Wiki, this is grounds for legitimate disciplinary action against you (and I intend to document all your transgressions, which are numerous, and forward them to your corporate offices). Perhaps because no action has been taken against you yet, you've become complacent in falsely accusing and belittling people and making pejorative comments on your deletion submissions and edit summaries (specifically, in connection with this article, you wrote "Spammy references", "the fact that she is **just an** entertainment lawyer does not cut it"). I'd be truly interested to learn who you are in real life (beyond the edits you make on Wiki) to understand what make you so cynical about people? Judging from the commentary associated with your other deletions and edit summaries (which are in fact far more egregious than your comments on this article), you enjoy taking shots at people. Clearly, you must have no knowledge about the law of defamation and libel. I strongly recommend that Wikipedia give you some interpersonal communication training because you can achieve the same ends without acting in this manner. How come other senior editors, such as Bgwhite and Alansohn, for example, accomplish the same thing without the nasty narratives and unprofessionalism you constantly demonstrate? Also, I truly respected NJ Wine's apology for possibly being too aggressive. The outcome of this AfD is not important to me, however, your clear lack of respect for people and frequent bullying is. Finally, I'd like to know how I am a SPA when in fact for the short time I've contributed here, my contributions have covered about 10 different subjects (obviously, my interest lies in people and subjects I have personal knowledge about)?? Also, I've reviewed the other Keeps and some have been on here since '07. Not everyone edits Wiki articles for a living or has the time to be active contributors, but that in itself does not make them SPAs. I have no doubt the administrator will vote in your favor, but it will have nothing to do with your allegations of SPAs. Instead, since you nominated this AfD, it does not matter what the discourse is or how many Keeps you get in favor, you'll make sure to find the right people to support your deletion decision and bully them into going along with you, consistent with your pattern of bullying so many other contributors on this site (all of which I have documented). Who knows, it might even form the basis of a class action. While Wiki is a great not-for-profit that I admire very much, your grotesque behavior is unacceptable and jeopardizes the validity of their mission (and believe me, there are tons of people complaining as a result of it). Lmatt123 (talk) 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Notability is not inherited. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable as per guidelines. --Tow Trucker talk 05:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - Perhaps this article can be merged. Any suggestions? Lmatt123 (talk) 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Although you are allowed to comment as much as you like, you cannot vote twice. I striked the word "keep", and added the word "comment". I'm not sure that merger will be possible. I looked at the Hogan Lovells Wikipedia page, but it does not list the name of lawyers who worked there. There is the possibility that Maryse Selit could be notable per WP:ACADEMIC if she has had a lot of law articles published, and it could be shown that she has had noticeable influence in certain area of law. The page mentions she has been published in the New York Law Journal and the Fordham Law Review but there is little additional information about her publications. NJ Wine (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Besides, it really seems more like a vanity or tribute article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject's advocates have searched for a week, and haven't found a published basis for notability. Actual press coverage on Google news archive consists of five brief mentions: two logging the purchase of her house, two in connection with short-term rentals or house-swapping her house, and one mention of her serving as a panelist at a fundraising event regarding fashion trends. No significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. The subject may one day become notable for her pro bono legal work, but Wikipedia must wait for other sources to write about those achievements in detail before we can summarize what they say. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ben Kovitz Been very tied up with work and had no time this week but, based on your suggestion above, I intend to do some research on WestLaw this weekend to look for cases where Ms. Selit played a particularly significant role. I am not very familiar with Google news archive, but when I insert Maryse Selit, Esq. into Google search, it brings up 221,000 hits. I intend to review those as well and edit the article based on my research this weekend. Lmatt123 (talk) 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think that doing "some research on WestLaw this weekend to look for cases where Ms. Selit played a particularly significant role" will in any way assist in establishing notability then you really, really need to review WP:ATA, WP:NOTABILITY, and other guidelines linked from those. I would think that, as an attorney, you would take the time to learn the local rules before entering the courtroom. It's also appropriate to note here that you have admitted[16] that "Ms. Selit is a colleague"; as an attorney (I say again) you should have realized the liklihood that your participation here would be potentially problematic. In this regard it's already been suggested [17] that you review WP:COI and WP:SPA, and even if you took that advice at the time it might help if you took a refresher pass now. EEng (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment The nomination does not have unanimous support. Lmatt123 should be given further time to improve the article, per his indicated intention. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see where a lack of consensus is being found; this discussion seems like a pretty clear delete consensus to me, especially as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Lmatt123 last edited the article on May 17, and "this weekend" has come and gone. "I need more time to work on it" isn't a valid reason for a non-admin to relist a deletion discussion, AfDs are relisted due to a lack of consensus or lack of suitable discussion, this AfD has neither. - Sudo Ghost 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in the rest of us going about our business elsewhere for a few more days while Lmatt23 comes to realize how silly he's been. Though on the record so far I have no doubt this article is a delete, I'm wait a bit more just in case. EEng (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with giving Lmatt123 a few more days to improve the article. However, I disagree with the following comment: "The nomination does not have unanimous support." Wikipedia requires consensus, not unanimity. NJ Wine (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, SudoGhost. There's currently lack of consensus in the !votes, although I do understand that the outcome will finally be decided based on the strength of arguments and not numbers. However, it's a reasonable assumption that there could be opposition to a delete close where Lmatt123 has indicated that he intends to undertake further research. If this BLP had obviously been subject to the ongoing inclusion of unsourced contentious material, then a relist would have perhaps been less appropriate. As it is, there's nothing wrong with allowing some more time. AfDs are rarely a race. If insufficient improvements/refs are presented, then I agree that the outcome is likely to be delete. Regarding WP:PLEASEDONT, that does not IMO take precedence over WP:AGF. As for being an admin or otherwise, that's of no relevance: I expect you may have considered questioning an admin's actions in the past too. HTH. -- Trevj (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is irrelevant; the good faith of the editor has no bearing on the closure. As for the admin comment, it is entirely relevant because Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures is relevant, especially when this was not a valid reason to relist an AfD. There is no lack of consensus in the discussion, and a consensus is not a unanimous thing. SPAs saying "keep" without actually giving a reason that has any relevance to Wikipedia guidelines or policies is not a lack of consensus. Relisting a discussion is done for two reasons (the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy) neither of which were present here, and as such it should not have been relisted. - Sudo Ghost 08:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is entirely relevant: Lmatt123 has indicated an intention to undertake further research, so we assume good faith that he will (I've dropped him a Talkback note).
The above comments of ~~No harm in the rest of us going about our business elsewhere for a few more days and~~ I'm okay with giving Lmatt123 a few more days to improve the article indicates that the relist has found some level of acceptance among other participants.
I agree that there's no lack of (policy-based) consensus. However, that consensus can change, and may do so if sufficient refs are added. It's not as if this is a 2nd or 3rd relist. I see no reason for any haste in closing this when there is reason to believe more info may be forthcoming. Please accept my apologies for the relist prompting such lengthy discussion; my intention was to avoid subsequent debate (e.g. at WP:DELREV if further sources were presented too late). Sorry.
WP:NADC is an essay. If you mean WP:NACD, that makes no reference to relists.
Per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days. Therefore, an admin can choose to close as delete when s/he deems it appropriate.

Hopefully that covers everything. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my words as a post-justification for the relisting. I said what I said only because the relisting was a fait accompli, plus the liklihood that a prompt close would trigger a flareup in Lmatt23's dyspepsia. Had anyone asked my thoughts on relisting, before it had happened, it would have been Hell No! EEng (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bathing#Types of baths. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandi (bath)

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

Non-notable local term for bathing with a pail. Note that the quote from footnote two is wrong, one bathes from a bak mandi; mandi is a verb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no mandi as a room; kamar mandi is the room (room for bathing, or bathroom) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(added for User:FrankSier based on his comments below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)) See my arguments for notability in the article's talk page.[reply]

(These comments are as follows:

"This article was proposed for deletion, on notability grounds, specifically "No indication of notability". I wish to defend the notability of this article. I am the original creator of this article.

My main argument for notability is that mandi, in this sense, is covered in Rough Guides and Lonely Planet; these are two of the most widely used sets of travel guides in the world; they are generally considered to be reliable.

The references are included in the article. (Unfortunately one of the links - referring to Rough Guide Malaysia - is broken, but the relevant text that was there is shown in the reference.)

Argument that this coverage is significant: in both cases mandi (in the sense of this article) is described.

These sources are independent.

I have removed the proposed for deletion template, following the instructions in the template."FrankSier (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

)

Is local being used as an argument for non-notable? If so, I do not think that this necessarily follows. (I think that something can be local and notable.) Is local being used to mean relating to Malaysia and Indonesia, (quite a large area) or some more restricted geographical area?

Also, I believe the term mandi has expanded beyond local use, and is known by some people world-wide (and there is evidence for this in the article and it's references), admittedly often people who have travelled in, or are considering travel to, the relevant areas.

I agree that there are some concerns about the quality and accuracy of the article, relating to exactly how the word mandi is used, but I do not think these relate to notability.

FrankSier (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, fourth edition:

mandi v. to wash one's body with water and soap (by pouring water over or soaking one's body, etc.) [membersihkan tubuh dng air dan sabun (dng cara menyiramkan, merendamkan diri ke air, dsb.] p.871

bak mandi n. something used to hold water for bathing [kolam tempat air untuk mandi], p. 121

kamar mandi n. place for bathing [bilik tempat mandi], p. 611

If the term has gained widespread use in English, with information available that can be more than a dictionary definition, then it may be notable. I don't see it here. I suspect what happened is that the writer of the tourism book about Indonesia was not a fluent speaker of the language nor was he familiar with the culture, and got things wrong when he heard "mandi" repeated over and over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added 5 references with some quotations to show usage, and have tidied up the article a little. I agree with FrankSier that the article was ripe for improvement, and hope it will be thought somewhat better now. However the concept is definitely notable. There is no reason why a concept centred on Southeast Asia is any less notable than a concept centred on Florida in Southeast USA or Kent in Southeast England: Wikipedia is not parochial. Mandi is widely used as the citations also show. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the quotes are of low value

"Take a mandi as frequently as you need to stay cool. Use a dipper to throw cold water over your red-hot skin (though if it's too hot, a shockingly cold mandi might give you a headache." - Replace "mandi" with "bath" and you have essentially the same thing. As it's from a travel guide, I think it was added for a bit of local flavour.
The factsanddetails.com source, aside from displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of the Indonesian language (as noted above, mandi is a verb), does not seem to be a reliable source.
The mandi-Mandy quote does not seem encyclopedic.
What makes East Bali Poverty Project a reliable source?
The ecology.com source is clearly mistaken; as cited above, kamar mandi is the room, mandi is the action. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the ecology.com and factsanddetails.com sources is precisely that that is the actual usage - by native speaker standards, certainly mistaken as we know, but it is what people happen to use. Which is the subject of the article. You can't have it both ways: if it were purely a Malay/Indonesian usage and only touched upon with perfect correctness by expert scholars, you'd be saying that there was no general currency to the usage. Now that it's plainly demonstrated that not only scholars but travellers professional and otherwise join in the usage, you say it's not correct and scholarly! As for equating mandi with bath, well, it doesn't involve getting into a tub, or shouldn't; and in the other sense, where a shower constitutes bathing, then of course, so does taking a mandi. It's a different kind, a Southeast Asian kind. The quotes taken together - of all different provenances, elegant and clumsy, do just what they should: demonstrate the broad-based reality of the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, native speakers don't just say mandi for bathroom. A Javanese villager, when asking permission to go to the bathroom, might say Mau ke belakang (Want to go out back), as saying kamar kecil, toilet, or kamar mandi could be considered rude by the host. In the city, with malls and whatnot, you'll find the term toilet to be more common on signs. In day-to-day life kamar kecil and kamar mandi would be acceptable spoken Indonesian. I've never been to Borneo or the other outer islands, so it may be different there. The sources are, quite frankly, reporting misinterpretation as fact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Wikipedia doesn't do translations. It's an article trying to be notable but never will be.--Merbabu (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we note please that removing referenced text and the supporting references during an AfD would be best avoided? Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If text should not be in an article, it can be removed, AFD or not. "It is cited" is not the sole criteria for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Since you have not provided any further reason for your revert and I have been quite descriptive in my reasoning (which you have so far ignored), I've restored it, and in the wikipedia way, should you dispute this, then use the talk page to gain consensus for inclusions, which appear to have only come about following the AFD nomination. --Merbabu (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that support for this article is based on three notions (i) that this is notable as a uniquely Indonesian/Malay phenomenon and (ii) an apparent wish to provide a translating service for our readers and (iii) it's interesting in an kind of travel documentary way. Firstly, this is not unique and is not notable beyond bathing - it can be included there. And secondly, wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary - any translation function is not the function of wikipedia and is null as a notability criteria. And "it's interesting" has never been a criteria for notability. --Merbabu (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not at all. On (i), it's not being claimed as local but as a usage in English among people especially who live in or have visited Southeast Asia. On (ii), the usage is not about translation and this is not a dictionary definition. On (iii), the split/lump problem, all concepts on Wikipedia are related to other concepts; it is always a matter of judgement whether to split or lump. Here, the manner of taking a mandi is at least as different a mode of bathing as taking a shower is from sitting in a tub. Finally, nobody is saying notability depends on being interesting. It rests as always on properly cited facts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, since you haven't responded to argue that mandi is a uniquely Indonesian thing I'm assuming you don't support that notion. Excellent. But, instead are you trying to argue that the English language concept of bak mandi is notable. Ie, mandi is an English word now, and that this is encyclopaedia material? I've lived and travelled in SE Asia, and people call many things many different things that are often wrong (and not just in SE Asia). Maybe mandi might be one of those, but that doesn't mean that foreign language errors are encyclopaedic material. More to the point, I've never heard it referred to it as mandi. If you've ever lived overseas, you often take on the local word for something, if not everything.

As the dictionary excerpt above shows, mandi is a verb - to have a shower/bath. bak mandi is the actual thing. Neither mandi or bak mandi are notable encyclopaedia items. Westerners using the term mandi as noun are just wrong, and it's not notable.--Merbabu (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained at least 2 times here... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a classic case of WP:NOT - and the arguments for keeping the article are problematic if not stretching the possibilities of Indonesian practices being given in their indigenous names rather than a translated form - similar to Indonesian editors using Indonesian/Javanese words and not translating (Keraton/Kraton is often used by Indonesian editors instead of the translation to Palace) - it is sending a very wrong message to future editors if such an item is kept. Notability has not necessarily anything to do with cites - there are a very large amount of terms and issues that are simply not encyclopediac despite being mentioned in tourist guidebooks. Satu Suro 11:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SatSuro said "Notability has not necessarily anything to do with cites", which seems to me just about the opposite of the notability guidelines. I think we should get back to basics: in Wikipedia:Notability the general notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

It seems to me therefore that therefore inclusion can be challenged on 3 basic grounds:

1. whether the coverage is "significant" (of sufficient detail),

2. "Reliable" (which I would take to mean "generally considered to be reliable in that particular area of knowledge - provided the area of knowledge itself is notable")

3. "independent".

I think that (at least a lot of) the challenge has been on the grounds of reliability. It would seem that in terms of "correct" use of Indonesian or Malay languages, maybe the travel guides are not; but the three travel guides that have been cited Lonely Planet, Rough Guides and Indonesia Handbook relate to information for as understood by travellers and tourists, and, in this field, these three guides are major references.

I think there is some challenge as to whether "touristic guidebooks" and information realting to travel and tourism themselves are notable areas of knowledge. So there are possibly questions: is this area of knowledge notable? Are the quoted guidebooks reliable within this field? (I would say yes to both.)

Extra information: in the Indonesia Handbook, third edition, 1985, page 78, there is a section covering about one third of a page, with the heading mandi. This lends support to the coverage being significant.

Also, in one of the cites, it was the prime minister of (then) Malaya who is quoted as saying "I want Mandi", when at Heathrow Airport (UK), and I think that this can be taken as a usage of the word mandi in this way (without bak or kamar; and mixed with English).

A lot of the cites are at present removed from the article so it probably makes it quite difficult for new people to join this discussion. A lot of the evidence for keeping the article is now quite difficult to get at.

Could SatuSuro be specific about which part of WP:NOT relates.

I would also like to point out

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_unencyclopedic which says that to say something is "not encyclopedic" is a circular argument. (Though the that page itself uses the same argument lower down Wikipedia:NOT#When_you_wonder_what_to_do).

I feel that "sending a very wrong message to future editors" may not be a good argument (either decisions are good, or they are not, and getting this right is in its own way sending the correct argument).

A lot of the challenge seems to be to do with whether the article is correct, rather than whether it is notable. If it is not correct, then I think the Wikipedian response is to correct it, rather than delete it.

I think that the deleted material should be replaced - but I feel that if I should do so now it may simply be removed again.

FrankSier (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest asking an uninvolved third party if the Malaysian prime minister anecdote is encyclopedic. As for the tourist books, that they misuse and misrepresent Indonesian and Malaysian bathing styles is not a reason to continue that misrepresentation and present it as fact. As noted above, many Asian countries have similar bathing styles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what is meant by Indonesian and Malaysian bathing styles being "misrepresented". I see that there have been explanations relating what the correct words are, but are you saying that the way of bathing itself is somehow incorrectly described? Is it thought that the article is disparaging or insulting in some way? I do not think that the article itself, anyone in this discussion, or any of the tourist guides has said that there is anything "wrong" with this way of bathing. (There might have been references to people being new to it, or similar. Possibly someone in a reference might have said something disparaging, but is that the point that Crisco 1492 is making?) Also, what is the relevance of other Asian countries having similar bathing styles? FrankSier (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Crisco has said from the start that the guide books are misrepresenting the language - a misrepresentation that your article continues. And, since you use the guide books to define the term, then the whole article is based on the misrepresentation. And Crisco never said anything about it being insulting or disparaging. That was your comment. --Merbabu (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Prime Ministerial quote, even if it is quite well known, it doesn't help us in anyway to understand the topic. Trivia and "interesting" items are not encyclopaedic. It needs to be informative. --Merbabu (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest the following: the article is modified to include the correct use of the language as defined by experts in the language, and the use as in guidebooks (which is a real use even if some consider it wrong). Whether this article is kept or not hinges on whether the thing being described is notable or not - not on whether the words used so far to describe it are the correct ones. I think it would be good to include in the article the differing usages of words, and by who. In that sense, this discussion has possibly enriched what could be in the article. (Possibly there is an existing article relating to how different groups of people use words differently? Or maybe this would be a good idea for an article?) (About the subject of "insulting or disparaging" - I agree that those were my words - I was just trying to enquire whether Crisco meant that.) FrankSier (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:DICDEF, and and should be on Wiktionary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bathing the article has no substance nor has the established it as being WP:NOTABLE, that said it is a form of bathing and that article needs a broader or view the sentence here would fit right in at Bathing#Types of baths if more significant sourcing can be found then it might warrant a separate section. Gnan garra 10:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bathing, I agree that this would be a good solution, and include under Bathing#Types of baths. FrankSier (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the process of Merge (if it is agreed): some of the content of this article was removed, at least part of the reason for this removal seems to have been that it was added after the start of the AfD discussion. (See entry by Merbabu 21:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC) above.) If the article is Merged then that consideration would no longer apply. I am concerned that after a merger this material will be more difficult to access, so that it can be re-considered. There were a number items of extra information that were removed. FrankSier (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bathing as per Gnangarra. Scooping water to bath is not unique to Indonesia and Malasia. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bathing as per several editors above. Maratrean (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or Delete, or Merge) to Bathing. Not every word in every language needs an article here. - Frankie1969 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be to delete on the basis of BLP1E. Personally, I think that section needs to be used very carefully--not to delete articles about people of borderline importance , but to delete when the underlying importance of the one event is really trivial. On the basis of the evidence discussed below, the consensus is that this qualifies are the appropriate degree of tribiality DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouryya Ray

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

Delete Scientifically not notable per WP:PROF; in particular, no reputable source for impact of high school project exists. Argument from press coverage invalid as per WP:1E. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this guy really solved a problem that has baffled physicist and mathematicians for 300 years, then obviously he is notable. There were ample sources in the article supporting this (before Thore Husfeldt removed them). The exact formulation of the problems remains unclear for the moment, but this can be tagged appropriately in the article and left open until this becomes clear. If the importance of his solution/results would turn out to be overstated, then an afd could be considered again. But for now, there is no reason to doubt. regards, Voorlandt (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

…if he really did solve such a problem, sure. But we cannot establish that. Several WP editors have tried for 24h. We failed. As soon as there is a reputable source for the magnitude of his contribution: he should have an article, and he’s certain to get one. So far, no such source exist. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, he did not solve an old problem, journalists got it wrong. Solution is not new and can even be obtained by mathematica in an instant. 78.30.154.210 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems the case now at least for one of the problems, [18] for which his solution appears in a 1860 book on ballistics. Voorlandt (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Hydao (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were many reports in the German press about this little genius. --Akolyth (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC+1)

… all of which repeat the same unsubstantiated claim that he did something that his contribution has baffled mathematicians and physicists for 350 years, all easily tracked back to hyperbolic press releases. We need one of the “baffled mathematicians or physicists” to speak up in the media, not references to badly researched newspaper articles. I’ve made a serious effort to understand the result, and then establish its notability. I failed. To argue for notability based on scientific achievement as per WP:PROF, should we not at least expect a nonzero number of published papers? We don’t have them. If his contribution is really notable (which it may be), he’ll easily get his paper, and a Fields medal. Then he becomes notable for WP standards. Not before. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep will be notable if it's true, and probably notable for the hoax if it's false. EdwardLane (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax. Just a case of misunderstanding, false claim of novelty, and unwitting journalists blowing this out of any proportion - hardly a notable case, journalist sensationalism happens all the time. 78.30.154.210 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

… that’s not how we roll here. We come “after”, not “before”. It his project really is scientifically significant, he’s sure to get a page real soon. No reason to pre-empt that. If it’s not significant (i.e., just something you get a really nice 2nd place in Jugend forscht for), then the young man will have his reputation ruined. “Hoax” is not on the table. The issues are “scientifically notable” or “artificially inflated human-interest story”. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's quite common for the press to seize upon reports of some unknown (especially a whiz kid) solving a problem which has baffled technicians or scientists for decades or even centuries. This makes for good copy (not to mention newspaper and magazine sales, and web ad imprints). However, quite often the claims turn out to be spurious. Sometimes the inflated claims themselves become notable enough (such as with Shiva Ayyadurai) for the subject to get its own article, others (e.g., Vinay Deolalikar) are worth only a passing mention in an existing article, and still others aren't worth mentioning here at all. I think that at this point it's premature for us to be able to make any verifiable assertion of notability for Shouryya Ray. If his claims turn out to be true, then the article can be recreated. If his claims turn out to be notoriously false, then the article can be recreated for that reason too. But if his claims turn out to be false and also utterly forgotten after this brief flurry of press coverage, then there's no reason for an article to exist here. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that: I have no doubts that the claims put forth in his project are correct. It’s not a hoax, or false/spurious in way Vinay Deolalikar was. Instead, my guess is that the result is entirely unremarkable, from a professional scientist’s point of view. An exercise in differential equations, maybe. Great for a high school student to be on that level, but not notable. He got 2nd prize in Jugend forscht, a very nice competition for high school students. (Make no mistake: it’s great and a laudable competition and all that.) But it does not a Wikipedia article make; not even the 1st prize holders become notable. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Looking back at my post, I probably didn't make this clear, but by "if his claims turn out to be true", I wasn't referring just to the claim of correctness of his proof, but to the claim that it is scientifically significant. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may become notable at some stage in the future when more precise details emerge, but there is no real (verifiable) evidence yet to demonstrate that something notable has actually been achieved yet. Madmath789 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the problems have been identified and verified by experts, then articles on the author and problems can be written. Until then it is just a article about a boy who came second in a competition which doesn't sound worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. If this competition is in some way noteworthy then it should have an article and it then may warrant including this person in that article. But not notable enough for a separate article yet. ChrisUK (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisUK, you mention a possible, constructive merge that I actually thought about. If the Jugend forscht article included a list of past winners (and, in fact, runners-up) then we could include him on that list and redirect the article to there. But so far, WP has not found the competition sufficiently notable to mention even a single winner, so I abandoned the idea. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we can say, at this time, that this person has solved a problem which has baffled mathematicians for 350 years. This event has not received any coverage outside the popular press, none of the articles have quoted any mathematicians or physicists commenting on the discovery, the statement of the problem itself is unclear and this apparently stunning achievement wasn't even enough to win the competition. Scholarly sources are preferred to news organisations for this kind of topic. I suspect what has happened here is that the significance of the discovery has been exaggerated to make a good human interest story. If that is the case (or until we have evidence it's not the case) we shouldn't be covering it. Hut 8.5 12:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to future re-creation. If his work is subjected to peer review (and by peer, I mean professional mathematicians, not fellow high school students) and accepted by the mathematical community as the solution to the 300-year-old problem, that would justify having an article about him. But the article doesn't even currently claim that the subject solved a 300-year-old problem, and attempted solutions along these lines don't always pan out under further scrutiny. The fact that the Jugend forscht judges found his solution only worthy of a second place award suggests that they didn't find it as impressive as the newspapers are making it out to be. Maybe the newspapers are right and the Jugend forscht judges are wrong, but there will be plenty of time later to determine that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is derived from the availability of sources; there are many, many sources available for this person. Unless there is a policy-based reason to discard these sources, the article should be kept. JulesH (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well (a) newspaper articles etc are not considered good sources for scientific subjects, and (b) the subject is only known for one event. Hut 8.5 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - For a better description of what he did, Google "Analytische Losung von swei ungelosten fundamentalen". Keep due to media coverage, not due to his as yet unverified accomplishments. If it turns out to be not notable, then delete. PAR (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Par, did googling that help you? You have to believe me that scientifically pretty competent people on and off WP have tried to find out what this is about, or why it’s notable. This absolutely includes your Google suggestion; of course we’ve read those pages. It didn’t help. If it made you any wiser as to establish notability, I suggest you explain that to us. Otherwise it’s just flippant and makes an already opaque situation worse. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said by others, no scientific notability as per WP:PROF, person notable for only one event as per WP:1E. vttoth (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reliable sources independent of the subject giving significant coverage, hence notable per WP:N. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - I'm not sure if any of you read the top headlines today, but the story of this kid solving a 300 year old Newton riddle that had previously never been solved, has been picked up from at least a few dozen major news papers: Times of India, MSNBC, TImes colonist, Herald Sun, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkdw (talk • contribs)

The only problem is that this was known for centuries; this is one example where it is discussed in a classic textbook from 1860 as a regular studies material [19]. The analytic solutions were much more important in previous age when there were no computer, nowadays noone bothers going into that much details in a modern textbook, but it is just a 18-19 century textbook material. Terse (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- [20] does actually have two quotes from physicists: "This story seems rather suspicious" and "calculating the trajectories of falling objects hadn't been seen as a particularly grand puzzle of physics". In other words, yes, this has been exaggerated. And I don't think you've read the comments in favour of deletion above, since we are aware of this coverage. Hut 8.5 20:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - An opinion does not require knowledge of other opinions to be made. Mkdw^talk 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You started your comment by assuming we hadn't read certain sources. We have. If you aren't going to at least read your opponents arguments then your arguments are not going to be very persuasive. Hut 8.5 21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said nothing more than my lack of knowledge as to whether you were aware or not. No where does it assume or say that you have not. Merely if you haven't, then I'm pointing it out. The other opinions here are not my opponents. This is not a competition. There is no winner. My goal is also not to persuade the other editors either. You seem to have many misgivings about my comment. Mkdw ^talk 22:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, no. You professed ignorance of what other people think, I was trying to inform you. I should remind you that AfD discussions are not votes, and that if you leave a comment without addressing the issues at hand then it is unlikely to be given much weight by the closing administrator. Hut 8.5 22:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        May I remind you the sky is blue? I never suggested this was a vote either. Whether you think my comment does not address the issue is your opinion. I feel it does. I'm in awe that you're an administrator considering the rude nature of your comments. Mkdw ^talk 00:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your opinion and thoughts aren't relevant if you are on the Keep side of this debate. Please refrain.68.50.216.187 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending further developments. He solved Newton's 350-year-old riddle ... and only got second place? What did the winner do? Discover anti-gravity? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep this WP page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.90.188 (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ (see below) It certainly goes under WP:BLP1E but if his achievement is a strong breakthrough then we should keep because we 'll see more of him in the near future. I am a little confused though: What did exactly this person solve? Do we have some link to something more specific than just a "old problem stated of Newton"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The solution devised by Shouryya Ray, 16, makes it possible to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Comments below answered by questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've seen those vague reports, and they don't help much. However, the equation shown in some reports does not "make it possible to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance," since air resistance depends on projectile shape. Clearly a number of simplifying assumptions have been made. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kid is obviously incredibly bright, and will no doubt achieve great things, but coming second in a competition (which is all there is, under the hype) is not yet enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.75.16 (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, I guess. Since there has been a lot of news coverage of this, I have a bit of an urge to provide good information (in place of the hyperbole and repeating of unsupported assertions which have been prevalent elsewhere). On the flip side, I did just read WP:INTHENEWS and I do agree that WP:PROF and WP:ONEEVENT argue against inclusion. My biggest fear about deleting the article now is that it will get re-created (if not under this name, then somewhere else) with worse content than what we have now. I can't find any wikipedia policies which directly address whether waiting for a little while under such circumstances is a good idea, but I do see that Wikipedia:Recentism has the text "After recentist articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum," (although they are more talking about rewriting later more so than deleting later). Kingdon (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering how uninformative most newspaper articles are I think this article should exist so people can attempt to get some better informaton (like that he won second prize and not first). It would be unfortunate if the only easily availabe source of real information got deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turgonml (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in multiple independent media. Things can be notable without being a scientific breakthrough. Taemyr (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E specifies three conditions not to have an article, and they are all met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single evhent -- as the news stories do here.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual -- this 16-year old student is a low-profile individual. He might eventually have a high-profile career, but per WP:CRYSTAL we can't assume that, and most engineers and scientists do not.
It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented -- winning second prize in a student competition is not significant, and nothing suggests a significant scientific breakthrough has been made. -- 202.124.74.156 (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- This is journalist sensationalism at its worst. It is questionable if the claim that what he did was unknown is true, this is one off event (like Deolalikar affair but at much lower level), at a local high school project at competition that deals with very well known stuff - this might have stood out at competition, but the unreliable press (Daily Mail - come on!) has blown it out of proportion, with most of the things written simply - wrong. The equation that he holds gives a glimpse about what this work is about - it is indeed analytic solution for the projectile speed in a model with quadratic drag, but it does not even seem original or previously unknown. So unless we have a peer review article and proof that there is indeed anything new or of value, we can safely remove this entry. Journalistic stupidity and sensationalism about things they hardly understand (i.e. unreliable reporting) does not make thing encyclopedic, and the hype itself is not very notable. Hence, delete. Wangleetodd (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the "Deolalikar affair". The fact that when there is no Deolalikar Wikipedia article is a bit of a sweet irony here. Deletionists just don't seem to get it that people come to Wikipedia to learn about stuff - most people don't care whether X is notable etc etc. If 10,000 newspaper articles are talking about the guy, then there should we a Wikipedia article about him. Later on, in due course, the article can be retired or whatever. But right now Wikipedia is the de facto place of reference on the internet - and Deletionists are ruining that. --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Deolalikar affar" is likely also not notable beyond the Wikipedia community, and the incidental slashdotting. It certainly has no more lasting scientific merit than any of the dozens of papers claiming to prove that P=NP (or not) that appear each year. In any event, there is a record of the affair at the deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Claims that the result is unknown are untrue. This can be understandable at this relatively low level competition, where the mentors might not be aware that the things were known for more than two centuries - they were only high school teachers for the most part, after all. So an not too knowable mentor tells a sensationalistic story to a newspaper, and a hype is generated based on wrong premise - that this was not known previously. However, in "Mathematical Aspects of Classical and Celestial Mechanics", Arnold & co. claim that this problem was solved by Legendre for a wide class of power law (the Ray covered the quadratic case). So, this is nothing new, the media got it wrong and there is absolutely no reason to keep this article. Godlyhour (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Godlyhour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Especially in the case of minors we should be very careful about BLP cases, and this one (with its false claims of novelty) could be somewhat embarrassing to its subject. In any case, it seems to be also a case of BLP1E, as 202.124.74.156 thoroughly documents. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable achievement. I suppose you could put it into an article like Media circus or maybe Gosh darn those scientists are so dumb Greglocock (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The analytic solution to a quadratic drag projectile problem has been known for over 200 years (Legendre showed how to integrate a more general drag projectile problem). In fact, the analytic solution of the system of equations that can be seen on his poster can be obtained by MATHEMATICA in few seconds - it is hardly a scientific breakthrough; all he did is use a simple subtition psi=v/u (u and v being speed components), which reduces the system to the equation psi``=C * sqrt (1+psi^2) (you can see that on the poster), then u= A/psi' and v=A psi/psi' (A and C are constants) - and integrated psi by means of power series - a standard procedure, though pretty impressive fro a 16 year old to do, it is a routine thing (you can see the power series for psi in the poster, it is in numerator for v(t), in the squared part of poster with expression for u(t) and v(t)). He also solves a variation of the system (towards lower right corner of the poster) with used substitutions pointed out. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW here, and mathematica can spit solution for this in an instant. So, yes, media got it completely wrong, it is not a solution to a 350 year old problem, rather it is a straightforward application of known methods in solving ODE, on the level of exercise problem for students, perhaps even entry level graduate students, but it is hardly even a publishable result even in physics journals (though such papers occasionally do appear). So if journalists got hyped, that does not mean we have to be, fortunately wikipedia has quite a lot of people who can see this for what it really is - you just have to look at the poster by zooming the high resolution image [21] - look at the system of scalar equations on the right beside the bottom of Newton's picture, it reads u'+alpha u sqrt(v^2+u^2)= 0, v'+alpha v sqrt(v^2+u^2)=-g - here alpha is proportional to drag coeffitient, u is horizontal and v vertical component of the speed - these are scalar equations for a projectile problem with quadratic drag, V'+alpha V^2=-G, so clearly this is what he solves; then you see an arrow below is noted substitution psi=v/u, and then second order differential equation for psi, which he solves using power series method. Put this system into mathematica yourself, it will solve it NP. So, this might be great for a 16 year old, he certainly is a bright kid who deserved his SECOND prize on this competition, but it is not a result that deserves such hype, it is not new, certainly not solution to an UNSOLVED problem 350 year old - it is so routine that mathematica solves it. And hence, it does not merit an article about this kid. 78.30.154.210 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Either significant or insignificant mathematically, there is significance on the fact of all these publications about the subject from major media, a search in wikipedia should record this fact ( that the story was published) preferably with the consensus of the importance (when it is / even though it has been reached). If not with this title then with some related to the incident including keyword that can lead reporters / historic researchers. If it is deleted, it will probably be re-created from people that will have to re-invent the wheel searching what he did. --ntg (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:BLP1E, recording it is exactly what Wikipedia should not do. -- 202.124.73.205 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a significant result, already known in fact, one off story. 147.91.66.6 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an article about a teenager who made a significant and notable breakthrough. It needs work to make it encyclopedic, but belongs in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Tazerdadog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Significant and notable for a 16-year old student. Certainly not significant or notable by any objective scientific standard. vttoth (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable enough to keep.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? This isn't a vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to media hype where it could be mentioned in a sentence within a section together with other similar, much more prominent cases (like Deolalikar, Bogdanov brothers and other scientific hype cases of various kinds, some of which indeed deserve their own articles). This is a simple case of a minor media frenzy due to misinterpretation of a result which is not new by any stretch of imagination, but the routine application of ODE methods by a young, talented kid whose mentors got overexcited and it all got way out of proportion. Terse (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. --TSchwenn (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No scientific peer review. All hype by the ignorant press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.70.101 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No peer reviewed publications. Overhyped media buzz. Non-notable. Acebulf (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A BLP1E if I ever saw one. It is certainly an interesting problem to solve, but it isn't as if its the holy grail of physics. Lynch 7 19:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if we get enough good sources confirming that this isn't so great after all (it isn't), then we can expand this article as an example how things are often blown out of proportion by ignorant media. Lynch 7 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overhyped in the media. There is no real evidence that this person has actually solved the mathematical problem; on the contrary photographs of an equation and a poster suggest that he has rederived an already known constant of motion and has obtained a series solution for the problem, which does not qualify as an "analytic solution" in closed form. Thus I'd suggest that this article is not newsworthy and should be deleted. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every once in a while one of these news stories about a "wunderkind" come out, and we have a little AfD about it (remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett?) The relevant criterion for assessing the notability of such individuals is WP:ACADEMIC. Thus Terrence Tao and Karl Friedrich Gauss would have met this standard as teenagers, but Jacob Barnett and Shouryya Ray would not have (yet). In case someone doubts the applicability of WP:ACADEMIC, believing sensationalist journalism in the yellow media makes for a pass of WP:GNG, well we also have WP:BLP1E which clearly also applies here. In fact, given that the subject did not actually solve and unsolved problem, contrary to initial reports, the current story will be of no lasting scientific importance: even the one event for which this subject is presumptively notable is entirely ephemeral. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The scientific result he has obtained does not exists for us, as there is not any reliable source for it (that should be a scientific source). Thus this is a case of WP:1E, the unique event being a second place in a scientific competition. As none of the past winners of this competition has an article and that the article on this competition does not list the winners. This unique event is not notable enough for Wikipedia. More: WP:BLP1E contains the sentence "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". In this case, no persistence in the news, thus very low significance. D.Lazard (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a) per above notes that the equation derived isn't new (so it's not notable on scientific grounds), and b) the press finds something like this to crow about every few weeks, so the press coverage isn't IMO up to notability threshold for its own sake either. If it makes a splash in the academic community and/or press coverage continues for a few months, then it can be re-created with a better argument for notability, but per WP:CRYSTAL we're not there yet. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E. This person is known for one event, and is a news item, not a long term item. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've no doubt that he will meet WP:ACADEMIC in due time, but now he "only" got the second prize in a yearly competition for German high school students. I won this once, and I've got no Wikipedia article. :-) MichaK (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected as per WP:BOLD by author. As noted below, an article may become appropriate if the single hits the charts. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unstoppable (China McClain song)

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

Non-notable song from 13-year-old American singer China Anne McClain. Only references are iTunes and Amazon. It does not meet the WP:NSONGS notability guideline. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 07:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A.N.T. Farm (soundtrack)#Unstoppable - fails WP:NSONG as hasn't charted. If/when the song charts it should be notable enough for an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, malformed AFD, rationale is not valid. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}]]

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}}}

[[:{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}]] ([[Special:EditPage/{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:Zhongxian Railway Station}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The station's name is wrong, the correct name is Zhongxing Railway Station. Wyunhe (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 28. Snotbot t • c » 07:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gigwise. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy D Day

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

Non-notable owner of website Gigwise.com. This article (Gigwise) is also tagged for guideline and close connection, so its notability is being challenged. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Extremely lacking in sources. Google returns virtually nothing of subject. Most of the first couple of pages of ghits and Google News is about a 2-headed calf. DarkAudit (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Was a previous version of this article speedied last year? DarkAudit (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gigwise. I have no opinion on the notability of Gigwise but it is not currently under AFD so it is an appropriate target for a redirect for this person. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gigwise as per Whpq. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gigwise as above. So long as the Gigwise article exists it is a reasonable target, and this may be a search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn nomination. My76Strat (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bisa Williams

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

~~Does not pass WP:DIPLOMAT, has not yet been significantly involved in discussions or negotiations of historical importance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the general notability guideline? If she meets that then WP:DIPLOMAT is irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is a presumption of notability, not proof of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a complete non sequitur. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The general standard is that a subject need to meet the general notability guideline OR the subject specific guidelines. The subject specific guidelines are not an extra requirement. In fact, it works the other way round in that meeting the additional guideline means a subject is likely but not necessarily going to be notable. WP:BIO clearly states "failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Since Williams clearly meet WP:GNG, there is no need for her to meet WP:DIPLOMAT. -- KTC (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Unequivocally passes GNG, as Phil and KTC said above, WP:DIPLOMAT is irrelevant here. — Bill william compton^Talk 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject does, in fact, meet WP:DIPLOMAT as well as WP:GNG, with her discussions in Cuba clearly being of historical importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per KTC. Good point, my mistake. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of sources which would evidence notability under WP:GNG joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idslot

AfDs for this article:

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

First AFD speedy closed for G7'ing. Article later remade and A7'd. Malik Shabazz declined the A7 and prodded, then someone else Prod2'd. But of course you can't prod what's been AFD'd, so here we go. Seems ad-like, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, released less than two days ago. →Σ τ c. 06:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google not able to find any reliable sources and the article lacks in that. No WP:RS and thus fails WP:GNG. Released 2 days ago is not a reason for it not being notable, but the article and the thing itself is not notable. →TSU ^tp* 08:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not 'no sources', but self-published. Dru of Id (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every bit of software is notable, and this is far too soon. Peridon (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here worth keeping. fails wp:gng. →B music ian 02:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published advert. No source, no sign of anything to back up it's notability. Highbeam doesn't give anything too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for the topic. Also, there's zero Google News hits. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Metadata Registry

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

Page has no references or links, has been gathering "fix me" tags for 3-5 years, and my personal attempts to find references outside Wikipedia have failed. Appears to be original research. Krushia (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This nomination is still listed in the log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 7, due to being malformed it likely appeared to be a comment on another AfD rather then a nomination of its own and so was overlooked. I have refactored the nomination to include the normal templates, and will be adding it to today's log. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time of the AfD for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nominator I was unable to find any reliable sources for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search for sources turns up only a similarly-named program that was part of Novell Netware and a couple of non-reliable presentations by organisations that have apparently adopted it. Further apparent hits are either copies of this article or typos for XMDR, an unrelated but similar package. JulesH (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Searches under SMDR turn up other items but not this one. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—nothing in reliable sources. Hazard-SJ ✈ 05:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Galvatron's identity

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

I cannot find any reliable sources that verify any of the things said here. This appears to be 100% fan-made OR. Although the sources say that Megatron is Galvatron, some people don't believe that. Until that controversy spills over to anywhere notable, we cannot include this material on WP. This article was moved out of a section at Galvatron, but that article has enough problems with the verifiable cruft, and should not have the burden of this content merged back in. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced content. If there is anything substantive to be said about this topic, it ought to be said in the Galvatron article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much as it pains me to do this, I have to vote delete. All this material is interesting to me as a Transformers fan, but it's completely unsourced speculation, and thus has no place on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 05:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As much as my father liked Transformers when he was younger, I'm afraid that we have to delete this one. Even if this article's content wasn't entirely fancruft, it still violates one of the core policies of Wikipedia - no original research, and speculation on top of that. If there were actual reliable sources on the topic, it could have had its own article, or at least be merged into the Galvatron article, but as it stands now, I just can't see this having its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too believe the article's heart to be in the right place, but Wikipedia is the wrong place for this type of unreferenced speculation. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's interesting, but Wikipedia is not a fansite. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There would appear to be a case to be made for (a) a renaming of the article, (b) a clear definition of scope, and possibly (c) merging of the information elsewhere Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity

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

An essentially trivial list that will always attract original research and military history cruft. The fundamental premise of the list is triviality as all of these conflicts were long-dead prior to ceremonially being ended through low-level diplomacy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem with the article is that not all of the conflicts listed appear to meet the applicable criteria. Examples: In the Third Punic War, Rome completely destroyed the city-state of Carthage, so a peace treaty would have been irrelevant at the conclusion of the war. The article itself claims that Berwick upon Tweed's supposed extension of the Crimean War was spurious. Even if Town Line, New York purported to secede from the United States during the American Civil War, that wouldn't have necessarily put it at war with the United States. And the failure to sign the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany until 1990 was not due to mere "diplomatic irregularity" but due to real-world problems of international relations which remained ongoing throughout the Cold War. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination so misuses the link to WP:TRIVIA that it appears that it has not been read or understood. That guideline advises against having sections of miscellania in an article which lack a clear theme or relationship but this has nothing to do with this present case. The topic is notable as such curiosities naturally attract attention - see Loose Cannons, for example. Warden (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- They may attract attention, but not necessarily because the stories are accurate. The Loose Cannons book linked here says that the role of Berwick-upon-Tweed in the Crimean War was a myth, and also calls into question the stories of the Isles of Scilly vs. the Dutch Republic and Andorra vs. the German Empire, both of which are on the list now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Metropolitan90: the basic concept which underpins this article is dubious, and it has no clear grounds for inclusion or exclusion. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extension of wars by diplomatic irregularity is far from trivial, as war is by very definition an a priori diplomatic state of affairs; the ONLY difference between a war and any other conflict is that a war, being declared by a party, changes their diplomatic stance. A war extended by the lack of a peace treaty is more accurately a war than an undeclared conflict which continues for years, since this fulfils the semantic requirements for a declared war. The concern for original research, while of course significant, is not necessary - there is a difference between a priori knowledge and original research. These wars have not been identified as extended through anything but the simple factual information found in their respected articles (namely, that the wars were declared, never officially ended and thus officially continued by legal reasoning.) To respond to individual problems raised:

I agree with the problem raised concerning the Third Punic War - since a war by definition MUST end when the other nation is destroyed - but I also have consideration that, assuming the war was declared between two still-extant cities, they may still fulfill the requirements.
Berwick upon Tweed, being mentioned as a warring party in the declaration (as per its Wikipedia article), can be tentatively considered a belligerent in the war. Even in such an ambiguous subject as "wars extended by diplomatic irregularity", it is even more dubious due to the apocryphal nature of the original information.
The "real-world problems" of international relations which continued the Second World War officially is, by its very nature, a prime example of "diplomatic irregularity" - the significance of a period without a clear belligerent to sign a peace treaty is precisely the type of phenomenon this term (diplomatic irregularity) refers to.
Town Line would NOT be included as, despite a claim of secession, did not declare war (in neither de jure nor de facto manner), and thus would not be legible for this list. This list is purely about wars extended by diplomatic irregularity, not the irregularity itself. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- In fact, Berwick's Wikipedia article says that Berwick did not have a status as a warring party of its own in the Crimean War -- since it had been legally integrated into England by the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, it wasn't mentioned in the declaration of war as it was simply a town in England rather than a separate sovereignty. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nick-D. Seems to be another vague list defined only by Wikipedia. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the inclusion criteria. This is not OR, but firmly based on sources. The title needs to be modified to Wars reported as .... or some such phrase,andPerhaps we can find something clearer than "diplomatic irregularity" . (Although this is really best on the article talk p., Carthage-Rome should not be included; Berwick should, because it was so reported, though erroneously; Germany vs Allies is a borderline example. Town Line I'm not sure about. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response How can you say that there need to be firm criteria but then have no idea if several of them fit or say that they're borderline? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to me to be WP:SYNTHESIS Maratrean (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Campbell (actress)

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

Not notable, fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Best known for her role (of indeterminate size) in the single season syndicated TV series Police Academy: The Series (NOT to be confused with the Police Academy series of films).

WP:ENT suggests "significant roles in multiple notable (productions)" vs. one role of questionable significance.

WP:GNG calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; none provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT. ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SummerPhD - subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 20:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shimokawa Mikuni. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender (Shimokawa Mikuni song)

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

Non-notable single from Shimokawa Mikuni. it doesn't meet the Notability guidelines for songs. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this (or many of the artist's other singles) meets the notability criteria of WP:NSONG. --DAJF (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist per standard procedure. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second the redirect to artist. I've been following that procedure for other similar articles on singles for the same artist. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis the power

PROD challenged by author. I don't know where to begin: non-notable original reseach bordering on patent nonsense. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 28. Snotbot t • c » 02:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline WP:NONSENSE. Pburka (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete, because...If this for your is "Nonsens" and "Patent nonsense" that please look real: 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpWILwfqpgw 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwtFPERKpHg&playnext=1&list=PL5C46B91A5ACD360A . Please you analyze "References" and "Link" about project Project MKULTRA: "MKULTRA" only English language because it from CIA and USA, but my "References" and "Link" with Russian language because it from KGB and USSR...because of the "Iron Curtain" and "control the information space" (this "TOP Secret"). Therefore there is a shortage of such information (deficit) in English about the KGB. I advise you to just look (You will understand me). --Krupski Oleg (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unintelligible nonsense. Even granting there's some salvageable nugget in here somewhere, it belongs in other articles e.g. on MKULTRA. EEng (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research bordering on nonsense. JIP | Talk 06:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time officially published the name of this phenomenon as the "Силовой гипноз" (Hypnosis the power) page #376, author Doctor of Psychology Mr. Кандыба Дмитрий Викторович (http://ariom.ru/wiki/Kandyba/print), title of the book "СК Универсальная техника гипноза" (the topic name in the book on page #376 "Секретная техника силового гипноза СК, военно-прикладная техника, политическая техника и т.д."), publication under the auspices of the UNESCO "издано под эгидой ЮНЕСКО", Saint Petersburg г. Санкт-Петербург, 1994 г., ISBN 5-85991-001-0 (in Russian) --Krupski Oleg (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTube is not a valid source. Someone else will have to slog through that mass of Russian sources. DarkAudit (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"YouTube" I have for real this phenomenon, for your imagination. The main printed source page #376, author Doctor of Psychology Mr. Кандыба Дмитрий Викторович, title of the book "СК Универсальная техника гипноза" (the topic name in the book on page #376 "Секретная техника силового гипноза СК, военно-прикладная техника, политическая техника и т.д."), publication under the auspices of the UNESCO "издано под эгидой ЮНЕСКО", Saint Petersburg г. Санкт-Петербург, 1994 г., ISBN 5-85991-001-0 (in Russian). Your have problem - you can not read the References, because - you do not know the Russian language! But the English-speaking audience should know about it! --Krupski Oleg (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right -- Most of us can't read Russian. And since you can't write English, we should call an end to this, don't you think? EEng (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bordering on Wp:Hoax. No reliable third-party sources. jmcw (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a source of (immediately above the) - ISBN 5-85991-001-0 (from Doctor of Psychology). This information is out of control of the Federal Security Service (Russia). Therefore, published in Russian. --Krupski Oleg (talk) 06:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no doubt this article needs a rewrite if it's not deleted. The bigger problem is that I can't find reliable sources to support the claims that this power/ability actually exists. Jakejr (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Curran

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was kept after an afd three years ago on the grounds that Mr. Curran had played in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Champions League. It has since become a reasonably well established consensus that his does not confer notability. More importantly the article still fails WP:GNG, and Mr. Curran has not played in a fully professional league, meaning the article aslo fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not sure. In 2010, he did play a full 180 minutes in two matches against Rosenborg BK, a fully professional club: [22][23], making him pass WP:FOOTYN. – Kosm1 fent 04:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – for WP:FOOTYN to come into action, both teams have to be fully professional and Linfield F.C. isn't. Also fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 04:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 21:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold It's In The... (Pink Floyd song)

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

Non-notable song by Pink Floyd. Only when was recorded is included, with an inreferenced quotation. It didn't charted on any country nor has significance to carry an article itself. Also, it doesn't meet WP:Nsongs. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Obscured by Clouds. Pburka (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable per WP:NSONGS. The Gold It's in The... already redirects to the album, so clearly some noob didn't know how to overwrite redirects or something. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSONGS. Cavarrone (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Being by a notable artist does not automatically make a song notable.Stedrick (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Clear result but low turnout; see WP:REFUND. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada film families

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

Irrelevant and redundant, since it only repeats the information given in each article. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrelevant describes this rather well! --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonora Moore

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

Non-notable actress. Ridernyc (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~ - This comes one minute after the last nomination by this editor, with no indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed and no rationale for deletion presented. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make your deletion case for each, please. Your explanation above is an excellent start. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did they are not notable. If you have sources that establish notability you are more then welcome to present them. Ridernyc (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a source...

"Actress Leonora Moore Has Finished Shooting Two Features". Crewe Guardian. Retrieved 2011-11-20.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we get evidence of sustained coverage; a single news story is enough only to qualify a person for WP:BLP1E. By the way, it's possible to produce lots of new pages very rapidly (1) without automation and (2) with prior work. For example, I created the 89 sub-lists of List of Indiana state historical markers in little more than an hour back in March, because I had been working on them offline for a good while. It's quite possible that Ridernyc simply went through BEFORE on all of these nominations, decided that none of these people passed WP:BIO, and then nominated them all together. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I also has suspicions about what was going on but did not realize the total extent until every single AFD notice was placed on the talkpage of a blocked editor. I also wanted the articles to be judged by their merits and not as part of some larger problem. Ridernyc (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Crewe Guardian article cited by Northamerica is a classic example of noncritical that I do not think we have ever accepted as a RS for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:ENT. To disagree with User:DGG, more-than-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian is exactly what we have always determined and accepted as WP:RS coverage, no matter the topic being discussed, and as a source it is perfectly fine. We have an editor adding poor articles about folks involved with Sparrow (2010 film), and that has ended up being a problem. The more cogent issue at hand is that in its current state the srticle on Leonora Moore's career is mostly for her role in Sparrow. But an actor's career rarely sits still, and they sometimes use other names. Now receiving coverage is the just SXSW-screened[24] film The Taiwan Oyster (itself arguably itself notable under guideline and simply needing an article),[25] in which she has a significant role of "Nikita"[26] under the name "Leonora Lim".[27] With this second film now screened and reciving coverage enough to be determined as itself notable, WP:ENT is met. In ignoring its colored past, the stub article can be expanded and improved accordingly, and be allowed to then grow with the actress's career. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is one thing; its local editions are another. It is not without thorough consideration that I disagree with MQS in this subject field; I have almost never done so previously. But I think it is time that we stop accepting as a mater of course the generally indiscriminate coverage of local personalities in local newspapers. There is one field we have already done so: book reviews of books by local authors are rarely accepted as sources for notability, in contrast to reviews in regional or national newspapers, as experience shows they will do such a review for anyone coming from their town whose pr firm sends them a copy. (And I think in sports we don't accept local news coverage of local high school athletes as showing notability either)

Otherwise, MQS's argument is that she will soon become more notable. In that case, a new article can be written, by somebody other than an apparent publicist for one of her films. If MSW thinks this is already sufficient, I'd appreciate it if he rewrote the article appropriately & I doubt anyone would oppose it. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSW? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why start over later? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Actress Leonora Moore Has Finished Shooting Two Features is actually from the The Crewe, Nantwich and Sandbach Guardian. The article has been updated to reflect this. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the nominator and DGG are quite proper to worry about a publicist writing about their clients, I would think that now that they have been blocked, the issue becomes more a matter of how to deal with their contributions rather than simply delete all of them out-of-hand. On some of Ridernyc's other nominations, I gladly agree that some other articles may certianly have been premature, but in this case I did my research, found the growing career of a very interesting person, and set about addressing issues. While the stub that was first nominated looked pretty bad, it no longer does. A little work [28] has given the project a fleshed-out article with context, content, and suitable assertions of notability. While certainly not perfect, and while her notability is not on the same level as an Oscar winner, I believe that allowing this one to remain and grow over time and through reguklar editing, while at the same time being on watch for a return of the socks, serves the project far better than outright deletion in this instance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have one news story, one story from her own website, and a bunch of articles that don't pay attention to her in depth. None of these amount to significant sustained coverage. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but "in-depth" is not the SIGCOV mandate. However, being more-than-trivial, if not "in-depth" is. Information from her own website is either supported in reliable sources or background info... and as such is not needed for notability but definitely helpful in created a well-rounded BLP. And as sources that do specifically speak about her roles do not do so in a trivial manner, their not being "trivial" meets WP:GNG. That coverage be only "in-depth" coverage, or that coverage be world-wide, or that articles be solely about her, are not guideline nor policy mandates... and the assertion is meeting WP:ENT, and not that her notability is for wide-spread coverage. What we do have is verifiability of her signifcant roles in multiple notable productions, as well as just enough speaking about her in a more-than-than trivial mamnner to present our readers with an encyclopedic article on the the subject. As her acting career is only 3 years old, coverage is exactly what one might expect for a new actress who has only in the last three years had leading roles in notable productions. Per WP:BLP, her lessor roles simply have a place in a well-rounded BLP of this actor. This article can only get better... and in an encyclopedia that knows it is itself imperfect, and understands that it is itself a work-in-progress, our having a basically decent short article, one which can expand and improve over time and through regular editing, would seem to be what building an encyclopedia is all about. Yes? No? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's not famous, but the coverage that exists is adequate. Winner of best feature film at a film fest, promising career, several roles in small features and plays. She may or may not gain greater notoriety, but deletion does not serve to improve the encyclopedia in any way. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ENT requires significant roles in multiple notable works, which given or readily available third party sources does not establish. WP:FILMMAKER allows for single works (such as EAST in this context), but only if the notability of that work is supported by being "the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In this case, EAST does not meet that criteria given available sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She meets ENT per her signiificant roles in Dark Waters, Sparrow, Untitled, or The Taiwan Oyster... three of which already have articles within these pages (other are waiting). Sure... East might never have an article, but so what? It still merits mention in a proper BLP as her work as a filmmaker. She is not up-and-coming... she has arrived. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the three films that currently have articles here have yet been released in theaters or directly to retail. Given that they are unreleased, they cannot be accepted as roles in notable works. The existence of a WP article for a film does not establish its notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I invite you to re-read WP:Notability (films)#General principles and study the essay WP:OEN, as release in theaters or retail sales, while possibly helpful in finding sources, have little to do with actual notability per Wikipedia notability guidelines, as theatrical release or retail sales is no assurance of a film topic having the requisite coverge in reliable sources. Conversely, festival release can, and often does, win acclaim and coverage. Heck, even internet films that never see the inside of a theater can be found notable through receiving requisite commentary and analysis. And contrary to your belief, the existance of a WP article shows a film has met our notability requirements through coverage and commentary in reliable sources. THAT's how notability, per policy and guideline is determined. Simply put, we do not limit inclusion of film articles to only those that have theatrical release or retail sales. We do not expect low-budget indie films to have the same level of distrbution as their big-budget studio-released breathren. We instead depend on a film, no matter its beginings or background or budget, to have commentary and analysis in multiple reliable sources. Simple. Moore has had significant roles in multiple notable productions... and ENT is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had not read that essay. It's always good to see new perspectives. I did not mean to indicate that the lack of release automatically meant non-notable, but rather that all of these films are intended for release (according to their articles) and have not yet been. As you know, WP:NFF also deals with the issue of not yet released films; but in this case it appears that the films were completed and very likely will be released (and indeed have been given screenings such as at SxSW). As you said, if the movies were released it likely would be easier to find RS for notability. At this time, we have press releases and some reviews but little (reliable, third-party) guidance on the real notability of the films or Ms. Moore's roles.

As to the subject of the existence of an article showing that a film has met notability; as you are an editor who regularly participates here at AfD, I am sure you know that many many articles exist that do not meet that standard. Sometimes they eventually do get notable, sometimes they languish for years, sometimes they get PRODed, and sometimes they end up here. For instance, the existence of the Leonora Moore article does not establish notability. That's why we are discussing it.

I started off my response to this AfD as a keep, but the further I dug the more convinced I was of a delete. The pieces of notability and RS don't fit and the whole set of articles is kind of a house of cards, each supporting one another. Thank you for your thoughtful responses, and I look forward to the next!--Tgeairn (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy articles about The Taiwan Oyster in such as Variety and The China Post and Taipei Times and Austin Chronicle speak strongly toward its notability, whether it ever has "theatrical" release or not. Inre WP:NFF: what matters is that a film DID have public screenings and coverage in reliable sources. WP:NFF would be applicable ONLY if a completed film somehow disappeared and was never seen... and sometimes even then, exceptions to that guideline are welcome, as no guideline is an absolute if it prevents improving the project. But I digress. Back to WP:ENT: We have an individual who barely pushes at WP:GNG, but whose life and backgound can be verified in a reliable soirce, and who is verifiable as having significant or lead roles in several notable productions. Consideration of her meeting WP:ENT is not a house of cards, but reasonable application of the policies and guidelines which allows us to build an encyclopedia... one which includes even minor notables... as Wikipedia is not about only the "most notable", but is also about topics "notable enough". Yes, her notability is not as strong as DeNiro or other long-careered, seasoned pros... but it IS just barely enough so we can allow the article on her to remain and grow over time and through regular editing. We have a young woman who graduated from University of Oxford's Wadham College with a four-year Masters Degree in physics, specializing in astrophysics and particle physics. After being exposed to acting while living in Japan, she turned her mind to more acting and to filmmaking. Her parents must be acimonious, but I for one, will not predict nor anticipate failure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Candleabracadabra. I see references, an award. I believe she has crossed the cusp of notability. Geo Swan (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources presented or claimed that the article meets WP:GNG, there was a consensus presuming non-notability under WP:NFF. No policy-based argument for notability was presented. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Island (film)

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

Non-notable film. Ridernyc (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~- This is the third nomination in four minutes by the same editor, indicating some sort of automation is being used. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in any of these nominations, nor is an adequate rationale for deletion presented. Nominators should not expect others to put in time to defend or sustain a nomination that they are themselves unwilling to spend in investigation and stating of a viable case for deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether this topic follows or fails general notability guidelines may be irrelevant, as the reliable sources verify the existence of producing or releasing the upcoming film. Notabilities of some actors are, as well, irrelevant to the existence and notability of this film. No other articles directly related to this article exist, and merging this article into either existing biography or Post-apocalyptic would be a big mistake. Whether the conflict of interest is committed is irrelevant to this film itself. In the meantime, the fate of this film must be anticipated, and reviews must be anticipated. Moreover, Untitled Tom Cruise Project still exists, notable or not, and does not violate WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --George Ho (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the GNG irrelevant? Ridernyc (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic fails GNG, what about other considerations, such as notability requires verifiable evidence and is not temporary? --George Ho (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing how any of that gets it around the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you rephrase? I don't get it. --George Ho (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF for completed-but-as-yet-unreleased films and the lack of better coverage simply making this article WP:TOOSOON and not qualifying as a possible exception to guideline. Within a few months I may well be arguing for keep. I agree though, that the nominator's WP:JNN nomination statement was not quite per instructions at WP:AFD, and left the nomination itself open to question. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF for completed-but-as-yet-unreleased films. Happyxmas (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFF establishes that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". I find no RS for the production itself being notable. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack W. Carter

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are four minutes between this nomination and the last. Has WP:BEFORE been followed? What did the nominator find? No substantive rationale for deletion is presented, please elucidate. Carrite (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, constantly the subject of COI sockpuppetry. Should have been deleted last time - reasons for keeping appeared to be confusion with someone else of the same name, and votes from socks. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One role in a perhaps-notable film. "Supporting" (i.e. small) roles in other productions. No references or reviews mentioning him by name. JulesH (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per WP:NYA, without prejudice toward recreation at a later time if/when WP:ENT and WP:GNG can be more soundly met. My !vote at the first AFD was based upon my thoughts that the topic might be able to show enough (even if minimally) notability to serve the project. My current thought is that while I did find that his lead role in the horror film Sparrow had received more-than-trivial-mention in The Courier Telegraph and Argus The Examiner and several others, a problem granted here is that, with his minimal career and only one significant role in one notable production, we have a current failure of WP:ENT. And, while the currently available coverage might be seen to tweak at WP:GNG, it is only for Sparrow and so makes this a WP:BLP1E. Actors usually end up doing more than role in their careers. The un-clued author editing the topic[29][30][31][32] and arguing for its retention aside, we clued editors can allow recreation if and when the actor gains a second significant role in a second notable production. Puppets negatively colored the topic which might later be notable enough for us... but for now... nope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation should the actress pass the GNG later down the road. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Harrup

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

Non-notable actress. Part of a long series of articles created by a series of sockpupets all centering around the same independent film. Ridernyc (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actress with two credits (excluding minor roles, e.g. 'barmaid') in films of dubious notability. No suggestion that WP:GNG is met, and WP:ARTIST clearly is not. JulesH (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JulesH. Also, she is a classic case of WP:UPANDCOMING - she's had two small roles in two recent films but she's not yet notable. When she succeeds in getting bigger roles and reviews of her work, then we can re-create this article. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now per WP:NYA to Sparrow (2010 film), the one arguably notable article in which this actor can at least be sourced and mentioned. Current article is minimally sourced, making it a problematic WP:BLP. We can at least send readers to the one place where she might best merit a mention, and allow it back only when WP:ENT or WP:GNG are soundly met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society

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

Fails notability guidelines. Cited sources have nothing to do with the group and are only passing mentions. There is no enough reliable third-party sources to create an article on this one, much less to confirm its notability (if any). Moray An Par (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 06:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two of the three sources are reliable and have significant mention of atheism in that country. Perhaps a move to Atheism in the Philippines? Bearian (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are reliable but do not constitute significant coverage. There is not much material to write about atheism in the Philippines considering the lack of literature on it, and the relative youth (and lack of notability) of the organizations promoting it inside the country. Moray An Par (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately cited, national coverage, and per Bearian. Anarchangel (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So to summarize, there is no case for WP:RELIABLE now and we're just dealing with a WP:SIGCOV? The Freethinker, ABS-CBN News and International Humanist and Ethical Union is enough for me and should be enough for WP:SIGCOV. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a blog post, a news brief and a statement unconnected with the organization do not make for significant coverage in reliable sources. For us to keep, we need additional evidence of reliable sources having treated the subject in depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CLUB. There are not multiple independent, reliable sources covering the group's activity. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ABS-CBN news source does not discuss the subject in detail. What's left does not constitute SIGCOV of the society IMO. Pol430 talk to me 22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 22:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Oshinowo-Soleye

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

1. notability with BLP (RS, verification failed on refs I checked) 2. advert (for DVD products etc) Widefox (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to be several okay sources on her in Google News. I do note copyvio from here. Also she is clearly a successful model and spokeswoman in her own country and I see she has been described as one of the "20 most influential Nigerians". The article sourcing (which is a mess) needs cleaning up and the article could do with a good rewrite/clean out, but it seems clear to me that Ms. Oshinowo-Soleye passes the notability test per sources. Seems that article improvement rather than deletion is needed here. Mabalu (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good work with the copyvio link. The www.vanguardngr.com ref you cite is just a copy of the article at the time [33] so clearly vanguardngr is not a WP:RS. This BLP needs RS. Widefox (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a copyvio at all, date of the all africa article = Oct 2010, date of the edits to the article ([34]) = March 2010, add to that the [2]'s and [3]'s throughout the article and it's pretty clear which was copied--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed the copyvio tag. So allafrica.com is like vanguardngr - not a WP:RS. Widefox (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be quite a bit about Nike Oshinowo-Soleye on Google, interviews/articles/magazine covers/etc. Trawling through the blogs/NRS, this source on a government site 1 seems OK. This is the text of an article in Wow! magazine (or is it a blog? Looks like it's also published as a magazine though. Either way, no author is given, tsk) from their website. I think this lady would qualify, even after filtering out much of the bumph. While finding other decent sources may require some work, I suspect they are out there although stifled by a ton of unusable stuff. Mabalu (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

refs: 1. crossriverstate seems ok not strong (fails independent of subject? lack of author name does happen on corporate sites) 2. Wow magazine not RS (no author name, editorial control?, advert/PR/puff mag, international but tiny distribution). Both 1. and 2. are news/lifestyle mag rather than RS for BLP (missing bio facts) Widefox (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the article establishes notability via several reliable sources. The article fulfills WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:V and WP:RS. The Vanguard, The Punch, Thisday, Nigerian Tribune, National Mirror are part of the main daily newspapers of Nigeria, and are thusly reliable sources according to Wikipedia's definition of reliability. The sources on the article all have an editoral board consisting of scores of people involved in fact checking. WP:RS stipulates that "...in general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication...". AllAfrica.com aggregates, produces and distributes news and information items daily from over 130 African news organizations and from their own reporters. By the way, WoW Magazine is not a one-man show, but has several people involved in editing, and is thusly a reliable source. Nike Oshinowo-Soleye is notable for: 1) winning a well-known and significant award (Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria), 2) receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here are some additional references from reliable sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Amsaim (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notpron

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Already been deleted at AFD once, but that was some time ago. Only 1 independent references given and that is a small piece from De Spiegel - not significant coverage in multiple independent sources. noq (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like they decided to forego mainstream reviews entirely. Found a few reviews by smaller publications and will try to collate later to establish some form of notability. -Rushyo ^Talk 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a bit more, but not sure if it meets notability requirements.[35][36][37][38] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq can generally be used to establish notability, but Mobygames cannot. I'm unfamiliar either way with the other 2 sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not suitable in WP. WP:NOT#FANSITE. Several unsourced parts violate WP:OR. As evidenced by comments above, lacks GNG and RS. (I searched and found 'cheats' in blogs and similar web sites but nothing beyond what was found above). DocTree (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. All references are self-references. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NWEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET, the only third party sources available are either gameguides/hints/etc or game sites that indicate the existence of the subject site. No refs found to establish historical significance or cultural impact. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have explained. - Frankie1969 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sorry for the relist. I was fooled by size of the nominator's signature into thinking this was 2 AFDs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One page website

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

Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 13:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need some reasons as to why this is being deleted. Granted, I can see quite a few reasons (original research, written more like an article for a personal website than a neutral encyclopedia entry, etc), but we need a reason.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little beyond a definition of the term, simply stating the obvious: a one page website is a website with one page. any other content is essay-like.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- "But one page website has a single web page." per WP:NOTDIRECTORYOFTAUTOLOGIES. Dru of Id (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we get some third-party coverage of one-page websites as a distinctive form. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, unsourced, no RS, pure OR, er, why is that page there? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the title, "single serving site", or "single use site" is a more appropriate term. See the google results of this term as well. A single use site is a single page with a dedicated domain name and has only a single use or limited purposes. Also, this page gives some good examples of these one-page, single-use websites. - M0rphzone 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research of-course. The term isn't popular nor notable. →TSU ^tp* 17:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR. Why was this relisted? Pburka (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unsourced essay, and one-page websites aren't really that special. JIP | Talk 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Savage (film producer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Do not see a claim or assertion of notability backed with reliable sources to meet notability guidelines for filmmakers or general notability guidelines CutOffTies (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I disagree with CutOffTies for all of the same reasons I mentioned in the 1st nomination. To those, I will add two more arguments: Mondo Pagan and The Occult World of Rock Savage. Although somewhat crude in production quality, these films provide significant insights into the Neopagan culture. If Wikipedia had a category for Wiccan nonfiction films, this pair of films would be noteworthy members of that category. At present, nobody's written a Wikipedia article about either film, but maybe somebody will in the near future. Maybe I will do so. Folklore1 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That they provide significant insights into the neo-pagan culture sounds like OR unless it can be demonstrated with reliable sourcing, You need to demonstrate what criterion of WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG is fulfilled. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is established through significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is simply not the case here. Alternatively, it can be established by satisfying any if the criteria listed for WP:FILMMAKER. I don't see where any of those are satisfied either. The above argument seems to imply that point 3 is satisfied but I do not see any evidence to support such an assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider (1) John Edgar Browning and Caroline Joan (Kay) Picart (2011), Dracula in Visual Media and (2) Mark Opsasnick (September 10, 2003), Miscellaneous and Unknown: Cultural Souvenirs from Prince George's County, Maryland to be independent, reliable sources. Both considered Rock Savage notable enough to mention. Folklore1 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula in Visual Media provides no significant coverage about Rock Savage and the coverage of the film is simply a capsule plot summary, and such does not contribute towards establishing notability. Google Books has a preview available. Miscellaneous and Unknown: Cultural Souvenirs from Prince George's County, Maryland is self-published through xlibris so there is not the editorial oversight that would qualify it as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read a lot of his work, I consider Mark Opsasnick to be a reliable source on Maryland culture and folklore, even for books he self-published. My opinion remains: keep it. Folklore1 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reason based on your personal experiences (you are saying he is reliable based on what you know and his agreement with that) is inherently original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELTE' Sadly, I agree. Yes, there are references, however none can be considered reliable, many are self-published or niche. This article fails notablility.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Opsasnick is a well-known full-time professional journalist in Maryland. Is it necessary for me to provide references about Opsasnick to establish him as a credible source? This discussion could wander quite far from the subject, Rock Savage. Folklore1 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to establish that book as a reliable source. However, notability requires that the significant coverage be from multiple reliable sources, and even if that book is agreed to be reliable source, that is still insufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this project's policy on self-published sources is informative: WP:SELFPUBLISH. --CutOffTies (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This guy just isn't notable himself and hasn't made any movies of significant notability either. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG and FILMMAKER. Nothing linked passes any test for IRS. As pointed out above, the book is self published, so even if the author were an established expert, it could never (bold per policy) be used on a BLP. My reading of the discussions above is that only the page creator holds for a keep outcome in either deletion discussion. I AGF that User:Folklore1 is making a case based upon their understanding of the subject's notability (and that editor has pretty good cred in the Baltimore, Maryland popular culture subject area). I'd have no objection to userfying the page until better sources could be found. BusterD (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Natrona County School District Number 1. the consensus is the usual one: redirect to the district. If additional research appears, it can be expanded back into an article-- DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woods Learning Center

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

Article written as an advertisement (tagged December 2007) and without independent sources to prove notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is the nomination saying that the article lacks sources, or that a search has been done and the topic lacks sources? Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has been in existence for 5 years. If the subject was notable then some references would have been added by now. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did a Google Scholar search and added a reference from a research paper that discusses the implications of the fact that the school does not have a principal. This is a school that does things differently than most K-8 schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to school district per usual practice. That means blanking & redirecting - not deleting & redirecting - and leaving a mention of it on the schol distric article. if there is no school district article, make a small entry for it in the education section of its locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per common practice (Natrona County School District Number 1). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Bennett

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

An extremely minor character from the TV series Oz (TV Series). At first I was going to just redirect to List of Oz (TV series) characters, but upon further research, I found that the character was a completely minor character that appeared only in a single episode of the series. Thus, I can see no reason why this character is notable enough to exist in any form. About the only thing that can be said about him is that he was portrayed by a notable rapper, but that does not confer any notability to the fictional character. Rorshacma (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Put on a bus... permanently An extremely minor, one-off character from a series who is not even the coverage of any significant, reliable sources. Even if he was played by a notable rapper, notability is not inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this minor one-off character, so notability per WP's guidelines is not demonstrated here. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this entry. This is an important part of Oz and should remain a Wiki page. — 98.164.237.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Is it important in the real-world? Is Bennett the subject of several independent coverage about him and not of his actor? Is he even as important to Oz as Gus Grissom is to CSI or Horatio Caine is to CSI: Miami? If he is important in the Oz world, but not in the real world, then he should not have an article here. Instead, he should have an article at an Oz wiki or something, where in-universe material would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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