Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 April	18 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hersh Davis-Nitzberg

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

Previously proposed for deletion and PROD template removed by SPA author, but article not measurably improved. Blatant advertising of non-notable public relations executive. No evidence of notability under WP:BIO. Article should really be speedily deleted if possible. Jay Tepper (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNothing here indicates notability.JoelWhy (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 - unambiguous promotion. So much so that I'm going to tag it that. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Delivery Network

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

This is a somewhat spammy, somewhat corp-y article on a cloud computing service. The sole reference is to a company that provides these services, and G-searching doesn't turn up anything independent enough to be reliable enough to cite, never mind establishing notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 22:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poshspam; looks technical and informative but ultimately informs a reader more about the company's services than the company itself. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thhere is certainly businesses that are doing this, but there isn't a lot of coverage about this particular service delivered through the internet to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Rocket Productions

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

No evidence of notability in reliable secondary sources. Gnews turns up 0 sources. Ghits turns up wikipedia and homepage only. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently failing WP:CORP and WP:WEB. An article on this topic is premature. Perhaps next year. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT' unless you are from another world, and lived under a rock for the last few decade, fashion as well as fashion films are a very important industry , maybe not to you, but to millions of other people, if it wouldnt matter and wouldnt be reliable then it wouldnt make the bilions in revenue. The surces are reliable and are there to view, all you have to do is click on the link... what is so hard?? — Anaphoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And as all has a start, off course it isnt a mountain full of material, but the material they do have is valuable and is over 40 projects.... that is not a number to ignore... !! and as Whikipedia is a constant growing experience about one's evolution and achievements in life, i say OF COURSE YOU SHOULD KEEP THE MATERIAL... IT IS CLEAN, IT ISNT BIAS, IT IS TO THE POINT AND ONLY BASED ON FACTS AND MATERIAL , IT HAS LINKS AND IT HAS PLENTY OF NEEDED INFORMATION.... I SAY KEEP IT AND I SAY LET IF GROW BECAUSE IT WILL GROW... STEVEN SPIELBERG WAS BORN A SPEILBERG RIGHT? BUT HE WASNT BORN A GREAT FILM VISIONAIRE UNTIL VERY LATE IN LIFE... SO... LET IS GROW... AND WATER IT... DONT BURN IT... --Anaphoto (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)— Anaphoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - No coverage in WP:RS; fails WP:CORP. Current sources appear to be mostly videos. None but shining hours (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT - WHAT IS INCREDIBLE IS THAT THE LAST ROCKET SCIENTIST SAID THE FOLLOWING "CURRENT SOURCES APPEAR TO BE MOSLTY VIDEOS" .... AHMMM... MAYBE BECAUE IT IS A PRODUCTION COMPANY AND THEIR JOB INVOLVES..... AH..... VIDEOS ??? FASHION??? PRODUCTION??? IF THEY'D MAKE BURGERS THEN YEA, I'D BE WORRIED TOO... BUT NO... NO BURGERS... NO COFFEEEEEE.... JUST FASHION AND FASHION VIDEOS AND MAGAZINE COVERS... SORRY TO DISAPOINT... MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NEW YORK CITY COP.... LOOKS LIKE YOU MISSED YOUR TRUE CALLING... BECAUSE EDITING CLEARLY IT ISNT IT FOR YAH.... ANY OTHER INCREDIBLE GENIUSES ARROUND THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO ON A SAT. EVENING ??? TOOK YOU 2 MINUTES TO WRITE DELETE IT.. TOOK ME 2 WEEKS TO PUT ALL TOGETHER... HUMAN NATURE , EH ?? RUINING OTHER'S WORK FOR NO REASON ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.37.36.70 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — 187.37.36.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Louise Distras

The result was speedy delete under G7. Slon02 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A singer who has released one single with an album that is forthcoming, sometime. Refs are a video, mention about a person wearing her shirt, interviews or a brief mention. Unable to find a reliable, independent source that goes into detail about her. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. She maybe up and coming, but article can be recreated when she does. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Just about enough coverage. Loader Than War is a reliable source and has two articles on her. Female First looks a possibly reliable source and also has two article on her. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Than War has only one article listed and it is an interview. Bgwhite (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"New band of the day – Louise Distras" (feature with an element of interview), "Louise Distras, acoustic punk, so good we are featuring her again!" (brief, but not an interview).--Michig (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage. Other conditions not satisfied. Google count merely 12k. Statements like this “This morning, I received two emails from two men on different levels of the music industry. One from a promoter that considered telling me he wanted to have sex with me a higher priority than actually confirming a gig date and a second from a well-known record producer who suggested I ‘form a band/ join a band of ugly guys who can play’ to make myself look better.” might get some coverage but if much of coverage about things like that rather then music then may be the person is notable not as musician. Though in this case no evidence of any notability Oxy20 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kittiphong Pluemjai

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

A footballer. Has not played a game with the senior team. He is on the junior team. References are about his try out with an English team. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Prod was contested on unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage or senior appearances, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderGraph chart

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

This article has many faults. It fails WP:N. It appears to be based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester / User:GregLChest. Secondary sources endorsing this particular chart are absent. The SpiderChart may not even pass WP:DUE. References 12 (Programmable Controls Magazine) and 13 (Plant Engineering Magazine) are narrow publications; neither quotation suggest the authors are skilled in the field. Other journal sources (e.g., Lurie) extoll the virtues of charts for decision making, but no indication that those sources mention SpiderGraphs. If the chart is notable, then there should be secondary sources that cover it. A similar chart is already addressed at Radar chart, but User:GregLChest claims unsourced distinctions with that chart. The thrust of SpiderGraph chart#SpiderGraph chart vs. Radar (spider) chart and SpiderGraph chart#References of Radar chart Naming Confusion sections is a WP:NOR argument that other sources are wrong in that they fail to distinguish a SpiderGraph from a radar chart aka spider chart. That is advocacy rather than a WP:NPOV. There are links to blogs. The primary editor here has a WP:COI in that he is the author of the 1985 article. The CamelCase title (SpiderGraph) and component (FeatureLine) suggest an advertising tone that touts Chester, Divelbiss Corp., and Chester's current company GLC New Product Consultants. (See external link to GLCNPC website and article illustrations.) Chester has trademarked the name SpiderGraph, and he has made a cease and desist or pay royalty demand for its use. Glrx (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Chester's claims at Talk:SpiderGraph chart#Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns are not persuasive, and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph). In particular, there are no cited sources saying SpiderGraphs do not have the faults of radar charts. I came across this article while reviewing User:Mabdul's RFA; see WP:Requests for adminship/Mabdul Question 5 about the SpiderGraph chart article, where Mabdul states, "My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent[sic] and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango." Glrx (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google Books search shows that "Spider graphs" are actually notable, but that they are the same as Radar charts. Quality problems with this article suggest a merge is not a good idea. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: If you would have read the SG article and understood it, you would have observed by example, that the Radar spider chart is nothing like the SpiderGraph, for all the reasons stated in the article! (The Radar spider chart article's author has just infringed on my Trademark, along with 40+ other companies, not knowing the difference between the 2 types of charts! - I don't know who inserted this allegation, but GregLChest did not!) Gregory L. Chester 23:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The Radar chart makes Trade-off decisions by estimating the area of their patterns. The SG doesn't estimate, it can actually calculate what the final decision is! NOTE: Don't always believe what you read! Gregory L. Chester 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Glrx (Response to Reply To Author's Comments) RE: WP:AfD/SpiderGraph chart

Glrx Comments from 3 April 2012:

What WP wants to see is pretty simple. The SpiderGraph has been around since 1985. If the SpiderGraph is notable, then it should be easy to find some independent secondary references that discuss SpiderGraphs. It's easy to find references (and even criticism) for the radar chart and its many aliases. Even NIST covers them in a guide to statistics.[2] Where is that sort of coverage for the SpiderChart? The original journal article, a narrow industrial automation handbook, and where else? Why aren't SpiderGraphs on Friendly's comprehensive list? (Chernoff's face charts made it.) Why isn't it covered in data visualization texts? If the SpiderGraph is not being noticed and reported on, then it is not notable for WP's purposes. (INCORRECT ASSUMPTION! - The SpiderGraph chart was developed for "In House Use" (before the Excel Radar charting Method was developed) and Not Advertised, but still turned out to be a better "calculative design" for making Trade-off Decisions! (The amount of Advertising has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Method!) The Microsoft Corp. used their large Advertising Budget to sell their Excel software package because that's their business, unfortunately it was discovered when researching Radar charts, that their users didn't like their "estimation method" of making Trade-off Decisions! (WP:MNA) (Refer to the "Six Comments" section of the article that a non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted)

You claim that SpiderGraphs are better than radar charts, but that claim is original research or synthesis without independent, reliable sources that actually make those observations. (NOT TRUE! A Non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted the "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart" composed from other articles, which proved my impartial statements as being correct!) WP is driven by reliable sources. Without such sources, material may be challenged and deleted. (WP:MNA would suggest that "calculated" decisions are better than "estimated" decisions!)

textwalling from author

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

Please be informed that the SpiderGraph chart was developed January 1981 (w/o any knowledge of what a Radar chart was and Microsoft had not yet developed Excel software!). The SG chart was designed for "Internal Company Use Only" to train Omron's PLC sales people how to select the correct product to sell to their customers for their specific control applications. It was kept under wraps to avoid Competitors from learning about it!

References for Non-technical Reviewing Editors:

What is a PLC? What do I have to consider when choosing a PLC?

(American manufacturers: Allen-Bradley | GE Fanuc | Schneider) http://amci.com/tutorials/tutorials-what-is-programmable-logic-controller.asp

Omron PLCs: (Chester introduced Japan's Omron series of PLCs to North America from 1980-1984) http://www.ia.omron.com/product/21.html

List of Foreign PLC Manufacturers (see #5):

http://www.arcweb.com/market-studies/pages/plc-china.aspx

In 1985, a Trade Magazine Editor that normally published an annual review of all PLCs had heard about the SG Chart PLC selection method and asked this designer to write an article describing the use of the SG chart, because there was nothing like it! Up until that time, information about the SG chart was "not released to the public!" Shortly after the article was published, the Editor of "The Standard Handbook for Industrial Automation"called the designer to ask if he could include the article in the Industry's HB he was writing.

NOTE: The Editor of "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation" realized that such a Notable Charting Method could have been used by "all" PLC Manufactures to aid in selecting which of their products would best suit a given customer's application! (which was VERY NOTABLE!)

Side Note regarding WP Admin selection: Just as an HR person would do using the SG chart, select qualifying questions for an Admin and place them on the SG (SFC) chart FeatureLines. If the questions are to long, just number them, with a numbered list next to the Interviewer. Make a SG chart for each candidate's answers and then later compare them to select the best person for the job!

In 1999, sale of the "universal Visual Decision-making SpiderGraph charting Method" began by "using only MetaTags in a Website to attract Search Engines" to the GLCNPC eCommerce Website, but the name was still hidden and hard to find on the Website and later dropped off the Search Engines by attrition, unless it was specifically requested! However, since there were no Press Releases or Advertising, the Website stopped being useful for sales and became just a Hobby.

My word "SpiderGraph" was Trademarked on Feb. 18, 2003. Later, on March 10, 2008, an "Infingement Notice" was emailed to 10-15 companies concerning their use of my word "SpiderGraph" on their own Radar spider charts. (That was the Author's first introduction and response to Radar Chart users!) (NOTE: This Author of the WP SpiderGraph chart NEVER STATED that the Author of the WP Radar spider chart had infringed upon my trademark!! That thought never entered my mind, because there was never an infringement, the two charts are not the same!)

During January of 2011, it became time to renew my trademark certification. So I contacted the Trademark Board to renew my trademark of my word "SpiderGraph". On 2/10/2011, an Office Action email from a Trademark Examining Attorney was received, stating that my Trademark could not be renewed because the word was now considered "generic." They included 40 examples of the word being used by other companies. All 40 examples were later proven to be an "infringement of my Trademark" because all 40 examples were shown to be dated after 2/18/2003, the date of the original Trademark! (NO LEGAL ACTION WAS EVER ANTICIPATED BECAUSE INFRINGEMENT WAS BELIEVED TO BE ACCIDENTAL, DUE TO CONFUSION, AND NOT INTENT!) The Examining Attorney suggested that an article or definition suggesting that there's a difference between Radar spider charts and SpiderGraph charts, be published to cut down on confusion and future infringements. (at that time, the Author used only the WP:Radar chart article as a reference for the impartial comparisons throughout the article! It was later pointed out that WP Articles should not be used as a source.)

At some point during the article's time at AfC, a Reviewing Editor "Tagged the Article as not having enough Citations!" (WP:NOR) Upon doing additional research, it was learned that the Microsoft Excel Radar charting method was the most popular Trade-off Decision-making method being advertised, because that's there main business, and therefore, the most widely known and used method! Unfortunately, it was also learned that many of its users were dissatisified with the Excel Radar charting method, which uses estimation as a way to make decisions! (Refer to the deleted Section of the SpiderGraph chart article "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart.")

Since 1985, the SpiderGraph charting method was used by "only" the developer's company, GLC New Product Consultants, Inc., and sold as a Hobby on its Website and later lost user's interest due to the virtues of Search Engines! However, when the Apple iPad was developed with the largest screen found on tablet computers, it was discovered that now there was a device that could allow construction of the SpiderGraph chart by its user! In the last 1.5 years, this Author has been developing Instructions and software developement help aids to permit an RFQ to be sent out for the software development of an iPad Business App.

Delete as nominator. Chester's claims at Talk:SpiderGraph chart#Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns are not persuasive, and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph). In particular, there are no cited sources saying SpiderGraphs do not have the faults of radar charts. I came across this article while reviewing User:Mabdul's RFA; see WP:Requests for adminship/Mabdul Question 5 about the SpiderGraph chart article, where Mabdul states, "My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent[sic] and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango." Glrx (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm shocked that Glrx could not be persuaded by the impartial comparisons made in the SG chart article and while he may know about the effects of Geometry on the Radar chart, saying that those faults directly carry over to a SG chart, IS TOTALLY UNTRUE! The SG chart does not use Geometry, because the chart is hand-drawn, not computer-drawn! One does not need sources when the facts are obvious to the casual observer! (WP:MNA)

As to my reason to comment on your Talk Page directly, I wanted to prove a point with the Person's own remarks and not call them out, but you came back telling me I should learn how to Indent! Please know that I answered Mabdul & CET's accusations directly and proved they were non-technical and didn't know what they were talking about, so now they still want the SG Article deleted! Doesn't the Truth or being impartial & Neutral matter at all any more! Isn't that being spiteful or is it just plain prejudice or maybe there's a BarnStar fraternity that I don't know about?? Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. A Google Books search shows that "Spider graphs" are actually notable, but that they are the same as Radar charts. Quality problems with this article suggest a merge is not a good idea. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Doesn't anyone read an article before they want to delete it?? Within the SG article is a section called "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion." What quality problems are you referring to or haven't you read the SG chart article either?? Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Revision History of Radar chart" (cur | prev) 09:38, 7 January 2012‎ Mabdul (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,963 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by GregLChest (talk): Err, why did you sign that again? -_-. (TW)) (undo)

NOTE: I don't know what Mabdul "Reverted in good faith," but GregLChest MADE NO CHANGES! (However, It looks like someone rearranged this article and added a SpiderGraph chart reference to the "See also" section!) Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 12:26, 3 January 2012‎ GregLChest (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,011 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Copied Spider chart Image for my SpiderGraph Article - I made no changes!) (undo)

Speaking about Mabdul's Faith: He stated that he stopped Citing me because "he lost his Faith" in the SG chart article, so he restored the section that he had deleted! He doesn't state that his only reason for deleting the section in the first place was, he couldn't see the "value" (of 3 articles about Decision-making) being listed in the SG "Decision-making" chart article??

Glrx made the comment that I wore-out Mabdul, so he just gave in and restored the section he deleted! Don't you think that the Truth had something to do with that??

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester

PS - I'd like to talk to the Greetings Person that said, "Welcome to Wikipedia, writing an article will be easy, have fun with it!" Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Comment - as I'm not an expert in statistics, I have placed the {{expert-subject}} tag on the article for further review by other statistics experts here on Wikipedia. This said, Gregory, for the article, I am EXTREMELY concerned that you have trademarked this and are posting it on Wikipedia - this raises some serious flags for conflict of interest and a desire to use Wikipedia as a promotional mechanism. Moreover, the extensive commentary above is entirely unnecessary - fixing the problems as seen, or a simple rebuttal as to why these are not issues, are the Right Thing - and if further explanation to your rebuttal is requested, that's the best time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: Dennis The Tiger, regarding your concerns.

1) Your EXTREME CONCERNS regarding the word "SpiderGraph" being trademarked. PLS NOTE: all mentions of "trademark" and their icons (R)&(TM) where long ago removed from the SG chart article!

2) As far as PROMOTION, ADVOCACY, or ADVERTISING are concerned, this Author has no product to sell!

3) As to the above extensive commentary being necessary, most comments regarding the SG chart article and demands for its deletion are unfounded or usually from non-technical Reviewing Editors that may not have understood the article, so I believe that some clarification is required. How can there be a simple rebuttal when the other party doesn't understand what you're talking about?

4) This author's motivation here is quite simple: Wikipedia is used as a complete authority on most things encyclopedic. However, as far as I know, WP only touts one method to make trade-off decisions, the Radar chart. Unfortunately, according to the article itself, mentioned under the "Limitations" section and by many of its users, the "Radar charts have been criticized as poorly suited for making trade-off decisions. Further, it is hard to visually compare lengths of different spokes, because radial distances are hard to judge." Fortunately, for the user desiring better accuracy when making trade-off decisions, WP could show their impartiality by offering a more accurate alternative method, by admitting the SpiderGraph chart article to be part of the WP free encyclopedia. The SG chart can be drawn by free-hand, w/o the use of a computer, that requires a Spreadsheet & the Excel software package, which introduces Geometry to present a chart display, that is then used to estimate a decision. Gregory L. Chester 22:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete I am extremely concerned by the apparent WP:Conflict of interest by the article's writer, who is acting as a WP:Single-purpose account here; the WP:TLDR responses only make it worse. Okay, so this SpiderGraph chart is a product among many, and it differs ever so slighty from the others (which product doesn't?). The majority of the current article tries to show this difference from normal spider charts. However, this screams advertisement to me, and wikipedia shouldn't be a plateform for this kind of material. Any general stuff should be mentioned (along with non-promotional sources) in the Spider chart article, e.g. to illustrate minor possible deviations, the rest is simply WP:UNDUE in my eyes. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN. Sgeureka, regarding your concerns:

My concern is, that if this discussion is TL and you DR it, why are you even commenting on it? PLS NOTE: These discussions are long because non-technical people have made their concerns known and have proven that they are confused or don't know what they are talking about! I have only tried to clear up their confusion! Did you even read #4 of the above response to Dennis The Tiger??

Now to address your confusion:

1) The SpiderGraph is a one-of-a-kind! (Not a product among many!)
2) If you would have looked it the examples in the article or even read it, you would have noticed that the differences are "major" and not "ever so slighty[sic]!" The charts are nothing alike, except that they may appear to look like a spider's web, when finished.
3) This SG article does not "scream advertisement," however it does make note of a new, more accurate, alternative method to making trade-off decisions, that competes with the only other method, presently mentioned on the Wikipedia encyclopedia plateform[sic], that its users are dissatified with! The major difference between the charts is "calculation vs estimation."
4) "Any general stuff should be mentioned in the 'Spider chart' article, ... the rest is simply WP:UNDUE in my eyes." Sgeureka please note, this article is titled "SpiderGraph chart!" The Radar (spider) chart article is sometimes being incorrectly confused with the SpiderGraph chart! I think you should read the Radar chart article! You are one of the reasons that the SG article was written!

This Information is being Respectfully Offered,

Gregory L. Chester 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment by nominator Chester's long comments above show that SpiderGraph has not been noticed by the public (so it is not notable) and that his motive for writing the article is to preserve and promote his trademark.

The SG was hidden from the public. Chester states that the SG was developed in January 1981 but "it was kept under wraps to avoid Competitors from learning about it!"
The SG is not notable. In 1999, Chester tried to sell SG through his website, but "the name was still hidden and hard to find ... and later dropped off the Search Engines by attrition."
The SG did not have much impact. "Website stopped being useful for sales and became just a Hobby."
Chester admits no significant impact. "Since 1985, the SpiderGraph charting method was used by "only" the developer's company, GLC New Product Consultants, Inc., and sold as a Hobby on its Website"
Chester trademarked SG in 2003 and sent several infringement notices.
When Chester tried to renew his trademark in 2011, the Trademark Board told him that the term was a generic term (apparently for radar chart) and would not be renewed. Chester disputed the finding with the Trademark Board.
Now we get to motive. "The Examining Attorney suggested that an article or definition suggesting that there's a difference between Radar spider charts and SpiderGraph charts, be published to cut down on confusion and future infringements."
Chester then wrote the SpiderGraph chart article. Much of the article sought to distinguish SG from radar charts – the distinction that the Examining Attorney wanted to see. For example, "The Radar chart, sometimes called a Spider chart, is also known as a Web chart, Cobweb chart and Star chart, but it has never been known by the term SpiderGraph,...."[1] (Emphasis in original.) WP is not the proper place for such an article because it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The article making such distinctions should be published where it can be reviewed by experts. After that is done, then WP can report on it. WP should not be the place of first publication.

The thrust of Chester’s argument is that SpiderGraphs are somehow different from radar charts, but there are no reliable sources that make that statement. The six comments regarding limitations of the radar chart are about the radar chart and do not address or compare the SG. Chester's claim that SG don't have those limitations is unsourced. When Chester draws his own distinctions between the two, he points out trivial distinctions such as hand-drawn versus computer-drawn. The SG "is not constructed from a spreadsheet."[2] Radar charts can have up to 8 or 9 variables, but the SG can have up to 30. SG do not use "geometry".

I believe that Chester is wrong on most of the merits, but that does not matter here. Even if Chester is absolutely right about everything he says, he has not provided a significant number reliable secondary sources to support notability for this article. He has told us that a spider chart is a radar chart. He has told us a SpiderGraph chart is distinct from a radar chart. He has told us he trademarked SpiderGraph. What he has not told us is that SpiderGraphs, whatever they are and however distinct they are from radar/spider charts, are getting significant use and have had a significant impact on the community.

Quite simply, Chester is following the instructions of the Examining Attorney. He is trying to publish a article on Wikipedia to inform the public that his SpiderGraph charts are different from radar charts so he can backup his trademark claim.

Glrx (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glrx's 4/9 "Comments by Nominator" (These are Responses by the Author)

Glrx Please Note: It is people like you that have required my long comments! Just to let you know, I should be getting my Taxes finished, but instead, I'm spending my time to help you clarify your misconceptions! Also, Please Note: I type with two fingers, looking down at the keyboard, so you can see that I'm not to crazy about typing! However, not being noticed by the public has nothing to do with the article's Notability! As to "preserve and promote his trademark" - My TM has already been reinstated! Now, as to my motives, Please Read response #4 to Dennis The Tiger, above!

Now I'll try to answer your concerns:

1) I developed the SpiderGraph chart as a teaching aid and had no idea what a Radar chart was! It wasn't until a Reviewing Editor forced me to do more research on the Radar chart, that I discovered just what the Radar chart users thought about using it and that it had Geometry in the Excel software to help display the chart's patterns, that were then used to "estimate" the trade-off decision. That research proved to me that the SpiderGraph method was much more simple and even more accurate, because it didn't require software like the Radar charting method! (WP:MNA) Thus proving that the SG charting method was even more Notable, then the Radar chart! A fact that eluded me, when my descriptive article was included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation in 1986, that can now be found in the Library of Congress! (WP:N)

In my opinion, Notability has nothing to do with publicity or public acclaim, it's the Method that really counts! The Reviewing Editors shouldn't rush to delete any article, because the public has an opportunity to vote their oppinion at the end of each article! There's also "edit tabs," so the article can be corrected! I believe a Reviewing Editor should encourage, not discourage, a neophyte writer!

2, 3, & 4) It sounds to me like you don't know or care to know, just how Search Engines work! "It's the number of Hits, that keeps an article on the first page! Once it moves off the fisrt few pages, it's lost by attrition!"
5) It sounds to me like you don't know the value of a Trademark! Notices were sent in 2008.
6) (apparently for radar chart - "naming confusion") If you would have clicked on any reference in the "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion" section of the article, you would have noticed that the referenced companies had used a Radar spider chart and called it a SpiderGraph chart! In addition, I proved to the TM Attorney that all infringements took place after my initial TM date and a new TM Registration is in the process of being issued!
7) Yes, I thought the suggestion was a good one and it may even cut down on the naming confusion! However, that was only my "initial" reason! You see, after I started writing the article and encountered a couple of your really friendly and helpful Reviewing Editors and many more of your rude, teasing, and possibly worthless Reviewing Editors (you already know some of their names), so being a very principled person of High Integrity, I decided that I would not be intimadated by them! Therefore, my real motivation, after being forced to realize that the Radar charting method was not very good, was further explained to Dennis The Tiger in response #4. (To avoid being more lengthy, you'll have to refer to my Dennis response #4.)
8) The Examming Attorney was satisfied when I proved the infringement. However, the "but it has never been known by the term SpiderGraph,.... " was my idea! However, when it was pointed out to me that that didn't sound very Wikipedic and knowing that my article was intended to be an impartial comparison and that part sounded Advisorial, I agreed and removed it immediately! The part: "The Radar chart, sometimes called a Spider chart, is also known as a Web chart, Cobweb chart and Star chart" came from the 2nd paragraph of the Radar chart article itself, but I placed the spider chart name first because that was the name being confused. (WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS) are no longer true! The fact that the Radar chart article is published in Wikipedia and the SpiderGraph chart article will not be, if it's deleted, is not a very good example of Wikipedia's impartiality! In addition, the SpiderGraph chart article applies directly to the following Wikipedia Policy:

WP:NOT#DICT

2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public "misrepresentation & confusion" of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is "estimation vs. calculation" to obtain a Trade-off Decision, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.

Reading the above clarification, it seems that the SpiderGraph chart article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!

9) The thrust of Chester’s argument (There is no "argument" found in the SG article, it's all impartial comparisons taken from reliable sources and cited!) is that SpiderGraphs are somehow (How can you say "somehow," when it's proven by examples, WP:MNA) different from radar charts, but there are no reliable sources (Don't your eyes or knowledge count, when it's obvious to the casual observer? WP:MNA) that make that statement. It seems to me that you're the only argumentative person here, of course making exception for the non-technical and those previously mentioned!

For example: Your comment - The six comments regarding limitations of the radar chart are about the radar chart and do not address or compare the SG.

The reason the impartial comparison doesn't address or compare the SG (with citations) is obvious, the SG chart can be constructed and compared by hand, w/o the need of a Spreadsheet or a computer, that uses Geometry in its software, which causes the limitations!!! (WP:MNA) The SG chart doesn't need those things and still provides more accuracy than the Radar chart, when making Trade-off Decisions! A fact that is definitely not trivial, nor of my own distinction! Sorry, but I guess, the only distinction here is between a BSEE and a PhD!

10) I believe that Chester is wrong on most of the merits, but that does not matter here. (Unfortunately, it does matter here! You're either Technical or you're not!) (WP:MNA) Even if Chester is absolutely right about everything he says, he has not provided a significant number reliable secondary sources to support notability for this article. (Fortunately, Wikipedia, in all its wisdom, has provided WP:MNA, for situations just like this, that should be obvious to the causal observer!)(As far as reliable secondary sources supporting notability, I believe that my one (1) source, found in the Library of Congress, far out-weighs a significant number regular sources!)

As far as "getting significant use and have had a significant impact on the community." (I would have to say, that 45 companies using a Radar spider chart and calling it a SpiderGraph chart in error, would have a significant impact on any community!) Even Microsoft has been known to use a spider chart and call it a "Spider (SpiderGraph) chart." They were also sent an Infringement Notice, but didn't reply!

11) Quite simply, I already have the Trademark Registration, so the Examining Attorney is out of the picture. It's up to me to decide who infringes and who does not, but I choose not to persue it, because hiring a Trademark Attorney for an infringement case is a very lengthy & costly process! However, you are right, the SpiderGraph chart article will clear-up alot of confusion and cut down on infringement of my Trademark, but unfortunately there's more to proving an infringement case and a Wkipedia article would not backup anything, but the impartial truth! However, I believe that it's more important to always keep the public informed about what the truth is!

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory L. Chester 23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gregory L. Chester 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 01:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 01:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - Hoping to get some discussion that does not consist of walls of text from the COI author. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: Scottywong - Your Relisting Comment sounds highly opinionated!! If only you would have read this discussion, you would have noted the proof of Notabilty for this article per a WP policy example and that this Author has proven several times over that there was never a COI in the impartial comparisons used for this SpiderGraph chart article! In addition, you would have also learned that this Author doesn't like to type, but if the REs were more Technically Knowledgeable, there would have been no need for walls of text to help clarify their confusion! Gregory L. Chester 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot. In my opinion, the assertion that this is different from Radar charts is somewhat plausible. From what I can see, it's actually a legitimate variation of Radar charts that may or may not (as the COI author claims) have predated them. That's fine. What I'm not seeing is enough of a difference to warrant a seperate article. I would propose ~~three~~ two things. First, create a section of the Radar charts article that includes the critical information about the differences, including that it is claimed that the SpiderGraph is the original form. Do not merge, however - this article is too POV to use anything in it except maybe its sources. Second, Delete this article with extreme prejudice. Third, (someone else do this) take the COI party in the above dispute to the appropriate arbitration and request a topic-ban for that editor. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources that show the SpiderGraph is different from the radar chart. Chester has provided no references for that claim. When Chester describes the difference, the claimed distinctions are either wrong or trivial. Radar charts may use linear axes; they are not required to use square-root scaled axes. A well known problem with visual presentations is people perceive areas rather than lengths -- a well-known problem covered in the book How to Lie with Statistics. To minimize that problem, Excel apparently uses a square-root scaling (so the area of a sector attempts to be linearly related to its plot value). There's no indication that radar charts are limited to 8 or 9 axes; a radar chart can be a good chart for 24-hour cyclic data, so 24 axes are reasonable. Radar charts need not layer different candidates on the same chart; even the radar chart#Example does a side-by-side comparison rather than a layered comparison. Trying to layer more than a few candidates would strike any one as too busy. The distinctions are Chester's claims; they are not made in any cited reliable sources.

Chester does not claim to predate the radar chart. The radar chart first appeared in 1877. See Radar chart#Overview providing a sources for the statement, "The star plot was first used by Georg von Mayr in 1877." Chester claims that he developed the SpiderGraph while ignorant of the radar/spider chart. His claim is not about priority but rather that he made an independent invention.

Chester's legal claims lie in what name someone may use when referring to a radar graph. Chester owns a trademark, so no one is permitted to call their radar/spider/web/star/whatever chart a "SpiderGraph" without Chester's permission. He controls the name, but he does not control the usage charts with a similar appearance. Significantly, Chester does not have a patent on the process of displaying data on radial axes. A trademark is essentially a brand name: I can make a cola drink that tastes exactly like Coca-Cola (or Pepsi), but I cannot market it as Coca-Cola (or Pepsi). I can make a car, but I cannot call it a Chevrolet or a Buick. Chester can show infringement because nobody used the name "SpiderGraph" before he trademarked the term.

Glrx (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, then, I'm revising my opinion by striking the first part. The second and third stand. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: Jorgath - Regarding your comments & unwarranted negative conclusions in your very 1st paragraph of 44 words:

PLS. NOTE: All of the negative comments and assumptions from the previous Reviewing Editors mentioned above, have all been asked & answered at length and proven to be incorrect! But still, they persist! I guess, there are some Reviewing Editors that just don't like to be proven wrong! OR maybe they're just more into the "game" and not really trying to make Wikipedia better at all??

After reading your first paragraph comments: "I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot." I must assume that you are not Technical, nor Scientific either. Unfortunately, I believe a Reviewing Editor should encourage, not discourage, a neophyte writer, but it seems that most REs that I've dealt with in this discussion would rather delete something that they don't want to take the time to understand or maybe can't understand in the first place! However, after reading your unsubstantiated (Second) DELETE statement and your (Third) TOPIC-BAN statement, it is very clear to me, that you were selected to help build a negative consensus for my article's deletion! I guess it would be to much to hope for, that you would be a man of your word regarding the enhancement of WP, instead of just another misguided kid with the loyalty of a mobster hit man!

However, before I address your concerns, I would ask you to put on your "Enhancementist Hat" and impartially review a few things first: 1) Look at your Radar Chart#Overview link and read paragraphs 2 & 3 in the lower section on "Limitations." 2) Click the Link at Glrx's statement #8, citation #1. You will see "Not to be confused with a Radar chart," after reading that, scroll down till you see "Six (6) comments Regarding Limitations of a Radar chart" written by Radar chart users, that also found fault with the Radar charting method! (The Six (6) comments section was deleted by a non-technical RE and I believe it should be reinstated to prove that this article does have the required sources!) PLS NOTE: that the SpiderGraph chart has none of the Radar chart faults because no computer (that causes the faults) is needed to construct the SG chart! 3) Scroll up to the end of the Response to Glrx statement #8 and read the WP Notiablity Policy section WP:NOT#DICT, which describes the SG chart to a tee as being exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!

Now to address your concerns in your 2nd paragraph: Your first (mostly crossed out) paragraph, started out sounding opened minded, but changes rather rapidly?? So, I'll move on to your 2nd paragraph: 1) There are "no sources needed" for the SG chart, except WP:MNA, because the Radar spider chart uses a spreadsheet for the Excel software, so a computer can construct a few diagrams or patterns, so the user can make an "estimated" decision, looking at the relationships between the diagrams. The more diagrams, the harder it is to make a decision! (It's the computer that requires the Geometry found in the software to help construct the diagrams, that creates the faults in the Radar charting method!) Fortunately, "the SG chart only requires a user" to directly construct the SG chart and "no spreadsheet nor computer are even needed!" But, of course you should have learned that from reading the SpiderGraph chart article, that is, if you did read it?? The whole SG chart article is written in an impartial comparison style to show the distinct differences between the to two types of charts. (to address your uninformed statement, "The impartial comparison distinctions are neither wrong nor trivial!!" (WP:MNA) It's very simple: The Radar spider chart method REQUIRES A COMPUTER to construct a chart, so the user can "estimate" a decision from its patterns! Where as, the SpiderGraph chart method DOES NOT REQUIRE A COMPUTER, the user constructs the chart "directly" and can "calculate" the value of each item's chart, to then later "select" a final decision!

Your 4th sentence in your 2nd paragraph, "Radar charts may use linear axes," confuses me! Because, if you read my 4th paragraph above, starting with "However," requesting that you review a few things first, 1) was asking you to read paragraphs 2 & 3 in the Radar chart "Limitations" section, where you should have read in paragraph #3, that "it's hard to visually compare lengths, because 'radial distances' are hard to judge!" Consequently, "Radar charts use 'Radial' axes, not linear axes, because they all start from a common point." To continue with your comments, "they are not required to use square-root scaled axes."?? I'm not sure what "square-root scaled axes" are, but I do know that square-roots are used to find the areas of the Radar chart patterns, not their lengths!

To continue with your 2nd paragraph assumptions: I'm a Degreed Engineer by schooling and always tell the truth as a matter of principle, consequently I have never needed to read the book to which you refer: "How to Lie with Statistics." However, in the next sentence, you include the words: "Excel apparently ...," which sounds very much like an assumption on your part! As for your other assumptions: when you refer to the Radar chart#Example, reading the very first paragraph of the Radar chart article, it states "... represented on axes starting from the same point." (To do this, the patterns must be layered to find relationships within the same chart!) Does the side-by-side comparision box you refer to, "start from the same point?" NO, it's displaying 16 separate car star plots to save space in the article! (Refer to the article's first image to see a 5 Design Star Plot from NASA, does it tell you anything?) Also in the Radar chart article, please refer to "Data set size" on the 4th page of the article, which reads: "Radar charts are helpful for small-to-moderate-sized multivariate data sets. After that, they tend to be overwhelming." I used 9 axes, because that's what that example used! In the Radar chart/Spider chart article found at "http://web2.concordia.ca/quality/tools/23radar.pdf", it states: "A radar chart can normally include five to ten categories." Good Luck with that!

In your 3rd paragraph, while restating some of the things already mentioned in my article, it seems to be somewhat correct, that is if you will agree that my article "impartially compares" two distinctly different and independent charting methods (you call inventions) to accomplish a Trade-off Decision, and has further proven that a decision made "from calculation" is far better than a decision made "from estimating data trends!" (WP:MNA)

Unfortunately, in your 4th paragraph, you still seem to be confused! Chester's legal claims "deal only with the word SpiderGraph" (that fact has been intentionally omitted from the article) and belongs to a special and totally different charting method and has nothing whatsoever to do with, or referring to, a radar "graph?", which BTW, heretofore has always been referred to as a Radar chart or Radar spider chart! The SpiderGraph charting method and the computer-driven Radar charting method are two totally different charting methods that arrive at a Trade-off Decision differently, "the SG chart by calculation" and "the Radar chart by estimation!" (I'm sure you can guess which one is more accurate!)

The 2nd sentence of your 4th paragraph, regarding "the Trademark and permission assumption" is totally in error!! I have the TM for the name of one charting method and will never give anyone permission to call the other (Radar) charting method by the wrong name! If you've forgotten, the whole "SpiderGraph chart article" was written to prove, by comparison, that the two charting methods (and names) are totally different from each other! (Didn't you even read the article??)

Your 3rd sentence is correct, Chester does not control the usage of other charts with a similar appearance, nor do I want to! Your 4th sentence is correct, but your choice of the word "Patent" is incorrect usage and has never been used in this article or its discussions before! (I believe that you patent an object and copyright a process.) The balance of your paragraph is correct, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything!

With the information and clarification that I've tried to give you, I would hope that you would re-read the article and see if things start to fall in place or maybe you can give me the insite to make the article easier to understand. You mentioned that your aim is to enhance WP and make it better, well with only one choice, the Radar chart estimation method presently to make Trade-off decisions, that users are very unhappy with; giving WP a second and more accurate choice, like the SG chart article, may just be the way to do that. I believe the public deserves the right to have a choice when wanting to make a Trade-off Decision! After all, what can it hurt!

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory L. Chester

Gregory L. Chester 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete—After reading this whole wall of text I am convinced (despite GregLChest multiple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments) that this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia. GregLChest should take a second and realize that, as is stated in Wikipedia's notability policy, WP:N, Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. So far every argument for keeping the article has been to assert the fame, importance, or popularity of the subject. No reasonable argument has been made that the article subject actually does meet the notability requirements, specifically, the WP:GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN. Livitup - Regarding your SpiderGraph chart article Delete comments:

If you read the whole wall of text as you say, why didn't you see the following WP Notability Policy comment too:

WP:NOT#DICT

2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public "misrepresentation & confusion" of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is "estimation vs. calculation" to obtain a Trade-off Decision, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.

Reading the above clarification, it seems that the SpiderGraph chart article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!

Did you also read about WPs "only" Trade-off Decision-making method, the Radar chart article? If you did, then you would have noticed that the Radar chart has Limitations, noted on its pg. 2. This Discussion also mentions "Six (6) Comments" by Radar chart users about many more limitations (that was deleted by a non-technical Reviewing Editor, which I believe should be reinstated to give the article several additional creditable sources.)

All of these limitations are impartially compared in the SG chart, which has none of these limitations! This POSITIVE FACT alone, should be NOTIABLE enough to include the SG chart in the WP! PLUS, it would give the public TWO CHOICES to use for making Trade-off Decisions! (Showing WPs impartiality!)

As a less Notable Note, the SpiderGraph Chart was included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation, found in the Library of Congress, which means they also found the article Notable!

However, to contradict your incorrect assumptions, the SpiderGraph chart, while having importance, was kept under wraps until 2003 and still then was not advertised, and therefore there has been no argument or assertion of fame, importance, or popularity of the subject! The only assertion that the SG chart article "proves" is that there is no computer needed to draw the chart, which causes the limitations in the Radar charting method, therefore it is more accurate because the user can calculate the Trade-off Decision directly and not have to estimate it like the Radar chart requires!

Respectfully submitted,

Gregory L. Chester 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Delete with extreme prejudice and calculated disregard for the extremely boring wall of text above. This whole thing is a soapbox for the promotion of this product/concept, whose notability has not been in any way demonstrated. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN.: AlexTiefling - Author's reply to your rather short Non-Notable comments!

Dear Alex, you and I do agree about two things, that is: 1) WP is no place for personal attacks w/o first reading the article & its discussions, and 2) extreme prejudice Vanity User Pages, like yours, puts you in the WikiTroll class and should be removed immediately! My Mother once told me, that if I didn't have anything nice to say, I shouldn't say anything at all! A good lesson, your Mother should have taught you!

As for your comment about an extremely boring wall of text, I'm sorry if you're not interested in learning the demonstrated truth about a very Notable Article. I'm sure you found all of your college professors very boring too! Speaking about that, I'm really surprised that you didn't use your BSc Degree? in Mathematics to know that Excel uses Geometry to construct the chart, to the determent of the Radar charting method of making "estimated" Trade-off Decisions, compared to the SpiderGraph charting method that "requires no computer" to construct its chart, for a "calculated" decision!

Oh, BTW, this Author has no product to promote, as you assumed! Oh, yes, I'm sure you remember what they say about that assume word!

Your saying that, "notability has not been in any way demonstrated," only proves to me, that you didn't take the time to read the article or discussions, and that college didn't teach you to think for yourself! Blindly following someone, is no way to get ahead in today's world! Sorry, you haven't learn that either!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Commment: Really: "A good lesson, your Mother should have taught you!" - that was rude! AlexTiefling expressed his reason to this discussion and his decision to "vote" for a delete, and you going against him like that? Moreover what has a userpage full of userboxes to do with being a troll? mabdul 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Close to original research in the claims that we should have an article on this because it's better - that's not for the creator to decide, it's for the other writers whose accounts establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN.: Colapeninsula - I believe that you're a "non-WP person" w/o a User page and therefore, your vote shouldn't count!

A WP:N/N two page reply paper was entered on 1/15/2012, look it up! also, throughtout this discussion can be found a WP:NOT#DICT Policy clarification, in which the SpiderGraph chart article "impartial comparison" passed with flying colors, please look that up too. A little homework never hurt anyone, you should have done yours!

While writing this article, I received a WP:NOR tag and when I did my following research, it only confirmed that the SpiderGraph non-computer charting method was better! However, I'm not going to write a wall of text this time, you'll have to do your own homework on this one too!

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Commment: Huch? "[...]I believe that you're a "non-WP person" w/o a User page and therefore, your vote shouldn't count!" There is a) no policy on having a userpage and b) is that user "experienced" with over 3000 edits (not that edits show the experience, but they give a hint) mabdul 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge with radar chart. Putting aside the sidebar issues (WP:COI and the wall of text above), this is clearly a non-notable variant of radar charts, and one does not need to be a statistician to realize this. As far as I can tell, the claim to notability stems from a single article "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985" and other references on the page aren't really about the subject: this is insufficient for notability. Additionally, it may be a different issue if the paper in question was famous/celebrated, but that appears not to be the case since, well, I can't seem to find it.-Well -rested 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an aside, anyone knows what "Contr. Engr." stands for? Some of the databases I have access to list journals similar to that phrase, e.g. "Control Engineering", or "Control Engineering Practice", but I haven't been able to check them because those listings don't go as far back as 1985. Anyway, the state of the article is irrelevant to notability in this case. Also, man... we need better ways of dealing with walls of text. -Well -rested 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already stated in my RfA (and cited above). mabdul 12:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, I'm surprised this was even relisted, as (after ignoring the tl;dr) the concensus looked pretty clear. Regardless, the article fails to make the case that this has any independent notability from radar charts; most of the references are not about SpiderGraphs (as opposed to being about radar charts) and the one exception, the supposed Chester 1985 paper, can't be verified to even exist and certainly does not appear to have been cited by anyone else. Additionally, the tone of the article is overly promotional, and the behavior at this AfD does not give me any confidence that it can be remedied easily. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet notability standards due to lack of extensive coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 6). JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kelly (musician)

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

A singer. Has made one appearance on Britain's Got Talent. References all point to the one appearance. He may go onto an win the the whole thing, but that would be WP:CRYSTAL. If he does, then the article can be recreated. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britain's Got Talent article or relevant season article, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSICBIO, without prejudice to recreation if he wins. This seems to be a common outcome of premature reality TV contestant articles. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems a reasonable solution which may discourage anyone from writing an article prematurely about someone who's appeared on TV for 3 minutes! Sionk (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jorgath. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique "Kike" Calero

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

This article originally had no content, just a single external reference to The Baseball Cube, a statistics site, that showed he played a single season of rookie league ball. After the article was tagged for speedy deletion, the author supplied a ton of links, which I then used to flesh out the story of a player who played a single rookie league season, and was then released, and then sued because he couldn't go back and play college ball. The story was picked up by AP and then by lots of local papers, but with no follow on; not even so far as to report on the outcome of the lawsuit. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Falls flatly into WP:BLP1E. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Career minor league player who fails WP:ATHLETE. I don't see his lawsuit against the Astros as bringing him to the threshold of WP:BIO, especially since as WikiDan61 mentioned, news agencies didn't pick up on the outcome of the lawsuit (though I'm sure it could be easily found in searching court records). The article creator's username resembles the name of the subject, so one has to wonder if this article was created by Mr. Calero in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I should note that this person should not be confused with Kiko Calero, whose real first (personal) name is also Enrique, and who is also a Puerto Rican-born baseball player. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator's user page pretty much confirms that it is the same as the subject. Rlendog (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pitched rookie ball again in 1996 for the Indians organization, but nothing else I found on a Google or HighBeam search (even of the lawsuit) in WP:GNG. Secret ^account 19:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this, new version still doesn't meet criteria. And isn't "kike" an offensive term in the US? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, when pronounced as rhyming with "bike" it is an offensive slang term for Jews. I suspect that as a native Spanish speaker, this person would pronounce it "kee-kay", to rhyme with Enrique. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Mantiniece

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

This has been created by an SPA, and appears to be promotional, I would sugest delition, I hae found no evidance of notability Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I had previously BLP-prodded it; perhaps that was too generous and a {{db-bio}} would have been better. She has no mention in reliable third-party sources - most of the references or links provided are to pages which are said to be hers on Myspace or model promotion pages, and my own search didn't find anything better. The FHM reference appears to be on part of the website where readers can submit themselves for display, so not much of a claim to fame. The unsourced claims in the article (that she modelled for Wonderbra and modelled some underwear on a UK breakfast television show) would be unlikely to reach the level of notability required for an article on Wikipedia. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bencherlite. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no objection to this pages deletion, and no attmept made to save it, can we delete this now?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 Sole author requested deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Village, Wicklow

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

Lack of notability. When "Garden Village", Wicklow is Google searched it generates only 650,000 hits, most of them real estate. James1011R (talk, contribs) 15:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication whatsover of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, no evidacne of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Nelson50^T 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it sounds like unsourced attempts at publicity by the developer of this estate. The only online sources appear to be property sales sites. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Dawson (RMS Titanic)

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

Crew member who perished on the RMS Titanic. Is not a notable crew member from the perspective of historical interest. role^player 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I would venture to say that anyone on Titanic who didn't get significant things written about them before or after the sinking is probably not notable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources I found on this guy are either directory listings on all RMS Titanic victims, or discuss him because his name resembles that of the fictional protagonist of the 1997 film. Of those directory listings, most only give basic biographical information such as date/place of birth, his occupation aboard the Titanic, and some details about his death in the ship's sinking. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of the many victims. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I once heard that James Cameron based Jack Dawson on a then-unknown J Dawson on the passenger manifest. If this is correct, there may be a potential merge to Titanic (1997 film). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this J Dawson was crew, not a passenger. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Immobilized Enzyme Reactor System

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

No references. Article seems to contain a lot of "big words" about a product, and in fact seems to feel like promotional material to me. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching Google Scholar throws up quite a few references to the topic. Article should be improved not deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. The only wording that seems anything vaguely resembling promotional material are two phrases about efficiency of the process: "a cost effective method", and "The economy and process efficiency of lactose hydrolysis in milk improved using this continuous flow bio-reactor" Anarchangel (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Colapeninsula's argument above. I'll strike the "weak" if someone can actually post links to these useful references and/or insert them into the article. As it stands, I don't like it, and it needs cleanup, but it's in the category of "probably notable." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 19:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smart fortress 2012

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

NPOV VIO Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purushottam

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

Article does not have any assertion of notability, and is not very clear on what it describes. It mainly consists of terms that are not understandable to English speakers, and I believe that there's no existing content that can be used to create an article even if the topic needs one. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as either patent nonsense or no context. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - patent nonsense. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric areas in space

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

Google doesn't know this term, only shows links to WP clones. Also the article doesn't contain any sources. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 13:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as unsalvageably incoherent. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth redirecting. Possibly a candidate for A1? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Valid candidate for speedy G1. Or A1. Take your pick, really. This is archetypal patent nonsense: to the extent that there are even comprehensible elements in the text, one of them is counterfactual (the orbits of Uranus and Neptune do not cross). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and tagged it for CSD G1. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Vancouver Sun. Sandstein 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyangbao

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

fails WP:WEB. no extensive indepth coverage. [3]. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention Taiyangbao on The Vancouver Sun. PK T(alk) 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Vancouver Sun. Warden (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, why can't it be improved as per editing policy? LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an improvement. Taiyangbao is a Chinese language edition of the same newspaper and so it makes sense to bring them together. This is the English language Wikipedia and so we shouldn't have foreign language forks of content. Warden (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Vancouver Sun per Warden. There is some decent information and sources here, but it would make a lot more sense to include the information with the article on the publication that this is just a different language version of. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Vancouver Sun, per WP:WEB. IMO it's too soon for a standalone article, demonstrated by the limited number of sources currently included in the article. -- Trevj (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. B music ian 01:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of UCAS institution codes

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

WP:IINFO This list is just a replica of the one on the UCAS website, the information is not updated as it is on the UCAS website, there is no reason for it to exist. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeI am not sure it really is a replica of a list on any one page of the UCAS website. It does draw on the source code of a dropdown menu on one page on the UCAS website but I have made some formatting changes and added links to other Wikipedia articles. I don't think the fact that a list exists elsewhere on the internet is in itself a reason not to have the list on Wikipedia. For example, I would expect to see a list of members of the UK Cabinet on Wikipedia and on a UK Government website. After the changes I suggested was made, I would now like to change my vote to a Keep vote.Kinkreet ^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Cross (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC), edited John Cross (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have added more sources to help demonstrate notability. John Cross (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not that it is a replica of the UCAS website, or its notability (I think it is notable) that was kind of just an additional point. I don't see how this article is encyclopedic. Just as you would not see an article listing the combination of buttons for moves in Tekken. If the article title was changed to something along the lines of "a list of institutions recognized by UCAS", then it would be different, because then it would be an Index of articles. Fundamentally, for the article as it is now, I don't think the list serves any of the purposes listed here WP:LISTPURP Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now changed the name to List of UCAS institutions. That means there is a redirect page that may or may not need deleting. John Cross (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of notable institutions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting so that newly applied sources can be evaluated. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following cleanup and page move, this is an entirely appropriate list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment calling it 'List of UCAS institutions' suggests that these organisations are owned and operated by UCAS. Is that right? Either way I'm not sure whether a list like this is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. TehGrauniad (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fenerbahçe S.K.#Fenerbahçe Museum. No evidence that the museum meets notability requirements, redirect to Fenerbahçe S.K.#Fenerbahçe Museum. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahçe Museum

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

Article contains no content regarding the museum, it's just a list of titles won by the various divisions of this sports club. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Had to look at a few pages to figure this out. This museum is apparently a museum devoted to the Turkish Fenerbahçe Sports Club, which plays at multiple sports, and is apparently fairly popular in Istanbul. The team appears to be fairly notable. Their museum may be less so. At any rate, as stated above, this article is not about the museum, but about the records of the team. If this article is kept, it should be moved to another title that reflects its content. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that Fenerbahçe are a notable club. There already exists an article titled List of Fenerbahçe S.K. honours, but this currently only contains the honours for the (association) football section. This duplicates info from Fenerbahçe S.K. (football), and to include all sports would just be collating information from the honours sections of the articles for the different sporting divisions of the club. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear notable, and none of the content relates directly to the museum. West Eddy (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fenerbahçe S.K.#Fenerbahçe Museum. --Lambiam 00:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lambiam. I'd say merge if there were any additional content worth using, but I'm not sure there is any. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 07:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per Lambiam. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilpani

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

It's just a last name. I don't see any indication that it's even a particularly widespread name, let alone one that is notable. JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have articles on every last name. CMD (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TAG-PEDIA

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

I am nominating this article for deletion for the second time (here is a link to the previous discussion). The main reason is that the project is still, after about four years, unstarted. The owner recently had two interviews (one, two)) under titles "Tajipedia, the first Arabic Wikipedia". There he stated that the project is going to be launched very soon, probably before the end of this year, and maybe even much earlier, say in September. The 'first Arabic Wikipedia' is still empty. Last changes to the article history were in late 2010, and these were removing Spanish interwiki (speedy deleteion) and Arabic interwiki after an AfD discussion. Since English Wikipedia has already served as a crystal ball concerning this subject since 2008, I think this article can safely be deleted now, and can be re-created after it becomes a working and notable project. --Abanima (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure publicity/crystal balls for a project which has never taken off. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, with the possibility of recreation if and when the project actually takes off. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to California's 46th congressional district#2004. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brandt

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

Not notable. Failed political candidates are not normally notable, and he doesn't seem to be notable as a businessman either (there are several companies/products called Pyramid Software but none seem very notable). The only reliable sources I can find are routine coverage of the elections. And no substantial edits since 2007 indicates he's not getting any more famous. (Note that Googling returns multiple Jim Brandts; but none of the others are notable either.) Colapeninsula (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If he runs again and finds success, we might have to revisit this, but I don't see the notability at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Where he is already suitably mentioned at California's 46th congressional district#2004, and visible in the 2006 elections immediately below; interested readers can then navigate to United States House of Representatives elections, 2004 or United States House of Representatives elections, 2006, and the California-specific articles and sections from there. Dru of Id (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect We normally redirect unsuccessful political candidates to the election they ran in, but since he ran more than once I think Dru of Id's suggestion is the best one. Note: This article is basically an unsourced BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brother for Sale

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

Not a notable song, as far as I can tell. Just a routine featured in one segment of a video. Not released as a single or album track. A merge might be an alternative if there's something to merge it to. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For some reason I feel like there's been other versions of this song out there, that were made in some format before the MK&AO song. I'll see what I can find.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- I was thinking of the Shel Silverstein poem "Sister for Sale".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to work on it and I've found some sources that talk about an album by the same name that the Olsens made in the 90s. I think it might be best to make this article about the album as a whole, with a section on the song if there's enough information. If all else fails, this could probably serve as a redirect to the twins.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen. I know that this is a notable album and that it got coverage when it first released, but that was from before things got put on the internet regularly. There's some articles that are hidden behind paywalls, so if anyone is able to access those and show notability then I'm willing to change my vote. As it is, this would merit a redirect and a brief mention on the twins' article for now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue is that while I've found sources, none of them are so overwhelmingly reliable or in-depth that they'd show notability beyond a doubt. It did well in the children's album market, but not in the more wide music market.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79. This looks like one of those cases where it's notable enough to get its own section of a parent article, but not to warrant an independent article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - yet another CV. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paras dhasade

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

Not notable and possibly an autobiography. Appears to be like a self-introduction rather than an encyclopedia article, and if the result is to keep it, it should be moved into the author's user space. jfd34 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. This article clearly meets the WP:GNG, so there is no way it is going to be deleted. Other issues should be handled editorially. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Tomorrow

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

This show has not even been broadcast yet. I'm not sure how far the RT network really reaches; but WP:TVSHOW suggests that external coverage is more important, and a lot of the coverage here seems to be part of the Assange/Wikileaks publicity machine rather than actually how significant the show is, or will be. This all smacks too much of crystal-ball gazing to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Its due out, seems notable and more so than the many articlesd on tv shos that do exist. It could be spruced up for DYK at some time.Lihaas (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Guardian, CNN, BBC and several others clearly enough to satisfy WP:N. As for "Assange publicity machine" - if he manages to convince CNN and BBC to write about him, it is notable regardless. Ipsign (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Ipsign and because the show's scheduled first airing, "17 April 2012 at 11:30 GMT", has passed. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SNOWBALL. Clearly notable. Lots of secondary sources. Show was launched several hours ago. The first episode can be viewed http://assange.rt.com/ Some sources have reported that this is the first Western interview that the leader of Hezbollah has done in six years. Reported in CNN, BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian and AFP among others. Gregcaletta (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SNOW. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has significant coverage from some of the world's most noteworthy news outlets, clearly meets WP:GNG. This should be closed per WP:SNOW; it is clear that it will be kept and many readers will be looking up this article in the next few days. Jenks24 (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ariconte (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep This AfD is premature. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some potential sources were brought up, but didn't seem to be convincing enough to obtain a clear "keep" consensus. It seems to me that the best way forward would be to continue the ongoing merge/restructuring discussions rather than nominating articles for deletion before those discussions have come to a conclusion. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 18:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance locations

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

There was a discussion regarding how there are reliable sources, but the only thing that was pointed out was a wiki, which cannot be considered a reliable source unless a substantial portion can be attributed to credentialed staff. I have searched around for sources on Dragonlance locations, but the only results I have found were some results on Google Books that look like they copied directly from Wikipedia, and are thus not reliable. Reliable secondary sources are a necessity in order for something to be notable, and I do not believe that such reliable sources exist. New questions? 07:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This location list has three subarticles on locations (Ansalon, Krynn, Taladas), which at this time probably shouldn't have stand-alone articles. They are not included in this AfD, but the outcome of this AfD might affect their future. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If necessary, Krynn can probably be merged into the main Dragonlance article. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless additional sources can be found that are reliable third-party sources, the article fails WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 11:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately this is just the kind of game-based cultural material that isn't going to have a lot of independent, reliable sources available. I made a search attempt but didn't find anything of use besides a few mentions in old computer video games. Hence I can't support a keep. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this at AfD? Isn't the question a merge or redirect discussion? No one is claiming Dragonlance itself is not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving the content into another article would not curtail the requirement for reliable, independent sources. The material would simply end up getting trimmed back. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would, but we don't need AfD for that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggest porting to a fan wiki it their isn't any similar content there, Sadads (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly valid spinoff of any number of Dragonlance articles on Wikipedia. As I understand it, a spinoff article shouldn't necessarily require notability independent of its parent subject (in this case, the classic series of novels). A secondary option would be to consider a merge to Krynn of any relevant material, but I don't see why that is necessary and only offer it as an alternative to deletion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, every "spinout" or "split" article has to comply to WP:GNG, and it's perfectly logical. There is just one type of article, whether it's "spinout" or not doesn't change that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, this one is giving me difficulty. I am usually a pretty strict letter-of-the-law type when it comes to AfD, notability matters, etc. That said, while WP:AVOIDSPLIT pretty plainly says what you say here, that a "spinout" article like this has to comply with WP:GNG, and while I know full well that notability is not inherited, and while I know that other crap existing doesn't justify the existence of more crap, I can't shake the notion that this individual subject is so directly connected to its parent article that it's impossible to separate the notability of one from the other. Or, at least, extremely difficult. Coverage of Dragonlance in general is inevitably going to discuss, in varying degrees of detail, Dragonlance's settings -- not as a comprehensive separate topic, but as part and parcel of discussing Dragonlance. So...that's a lot of babble in futile search of both independent sourcing and policy/guideline that would make this a slam dunk, but it's how I'm thinking on this nonetheless. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Dragonlance world is the background of both a well known Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting (that has been supported in three editions of the D&D rules) and is featured in some best selling novels, as well as over 100 other novels. A lot of the locations in the novels have had a cultural impact on fans. There may be a case that some of the less-well known locations are not so notable, but there may also be a counter-case that this article should be expanded, with the best-known places getting their own articles. (And I think that the Ansalon, Krynn and Taladas articles are too important to be merged into this one. Ansalon represents the land of the original stories, while Taladas represents the land of a spin-off continent. There are several of these sub-settings for D&D and they demonstrate an era when TSR was attempting to build fantasy worlds on top of other fantasy worlds.)

The person who put this up for AfD should get in touch with WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, and ask for them to put this article onto their to-do list. The people at WP D&D are very good people and it is better for Wikipedia if D&D articles that are suspected to be bad are brought to their attention. They are experts in D&D, know what is notable (and what should be kept on Wikipedia) and have worked very hard to repair many many very poor articles and have managed to get quite a few articles onto the front page of Wikipedia. The article needs to be cleaned up. For example, the section on 'Dargaard Keep' gives insufficient information on a location that is fairly important to the understanding of how this fantasy world works. Lord Soth is a fairly major background character (and the most well known example of what D&D calls a death knight) and Dargaard Keep was both his home as a living person and his prison as a death knight. Wikipedia would be a lesser thing without better information on Dargaard Keep. There is even a band called Dargaard, which takes its name from Dargaard Keep, showing that particular location is notable. And in my opinion, Wikipedia is failing by not having more about it (and death knights themselves have also become 'bigger than D&D'). That is why I said that this article should have one or more improvement templates attached to it, instead of a deletion template. Big Mac (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize that wall of text, this article should be kept ust because you like it, and only D&D fans have the right to decide what is kept and deleted anyways...Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your shameful attempt to mischaracterize someone else's words barely masks a strong aura of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Do you feel that mocking users you disagree with helps this discussion? Do you think you can make your arguments look better by comparison by trying to make someone else look foolish? BOZ (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only shameful thing here was Big Mac saying that non-D&D people can't decide what is notable or not on D&D...as if D&D article were special and not submitted to WP:GNG like everything else. Yes, everyone is able to tell what is to be kept or not on D&D, not just D&D fans, and it was not up to Bic Mac to say "They are experts in D&D, know what is notable (and what should be kept on Wikipedia)", as if everyone else was not capable of following WP:GNG for D&D article. A statement which hides an even worse idea: if people who are using WP:GNG on D&D can't know what is notable on D&D, it means that D&D articles are following an entirely different set of policies than what the community is using (GNG), thus implying WP:OWN on D&D articles.

So now stop throwing around groundless accusations, I didn't make Big Mac look foolish, he has to take responsibilities for his own comments and what they imply, it's my right to express my disagreement with his views on D&D articles here, and I won't have you blame me and insult me for it. I don't need to make my arguments "look better" because they're already strong enough, this article fails WP:GNG, so instead of wasting your time insulting me, try to find independent sources, that would be helpful.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's not what he said. He suggested it might have been better to seek the advice of a relevant Wikiproject first before submitting this to AfD. That's pretty good advice. He didn't say that "non-D&D people can't decide what is notable or not on D&D" -- and you will note that there I am directly quoting you, not very loosely paraphrasing as you did here. You are right, you didn't make Big Mac look foolish. You may have made someone look foolish, but it wasn't Big Mac. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what he said. And instead of personally attacking me, try to find sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At no time did I actually say that only people that like Dragonlance should be allowed to edit Dragonlance articles. Your comments did misrepresent my comments. You claimed to be summerising what I said, but then twisted the meaning of my words. I think that borders on clashing with the principle WP:AGF. What I thought when this was put up for deletion before, and what I still think, is this:

If an organised WikiProject exists for a subject (and I mean any subject here - not just D&D) that establishes two things. Firstly it establishes that the subject area itself is notable enough to have attracted a number of editors that have an interest in that area. Secondly, it establishes that there are expert Wikipedians who may well know if an individual article can be fixed or not.

I don't think that anyone 'owns' any part of Wikipedia, but I believe that any article that has been added into a WikiProject is much more likely to be notable than a project that is not marked that way. I believe that the principle of 'assuming good faith' should extend to assuming that projects tag articles because they are aware that they are probably notable. I don't say definitely notable, as nobody is perfect, but I think that two quick attempts to delete this article ignore the work of the WikiProject.

Secondly, I believe that the existence of a WikiProject demonstrates that a team of people have an interest in seeing that an article is improved. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I think that working with other people (especially people that are trying to fix articles) is the best way to improve a bad article. As I stated both here and on the previous call for this article to be deleted, WP D&D is out there, it would be best to ask them to help. Projects are not perfect, and may make mistakes, so it is right that someone might question this sort of thing, but I believe they should look for supporting evidence themselves or ask the WikiProject to look for secondary sources. Making calls for articles to be deleted, instead of first trying to fix them is not in the long term interest of Wikipedia. Wikipedia can not be an encyclopaedia of every grain of sand in the world, but creating articles takes time and if an article can be fixed instead of deleted, that salvages some of the content that previous editors have put hard work into.

This article does have problems. And the main problem is that it has been worked upon by people that have not included inline citations. We should addressing that problem. Not be stabbing the deletion button on what is a salvageable article.

I would also suggest that, as well as attempting to repair this article, it would be useful to work out when and where it went wrong, and see if it is possible to politely contact editors that have put up uncitated content to show them how they can better serve Wikipedia. WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons may well be the best people to do that. As I have said (twice now) these people have turned articles into Featured Articles. They are good people. I believe that they may be able to turn bad editors into better editors.

Bending my words to change the meaning from that to a claim that 'D&D fans own D&D articles' is just plain wrong. Big Mac (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. "Notability" is not determined if a topic (or article) is attached to a Wikiproject or not. A "Wikiproject" is not a way to measure notability, but merely a gathering of users around a given topic to facilitate maintenance work on related articles. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by the General Notability Guideline, which states that a topic is notable only when it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The existence of a Wikiproject is linked in no way whatsoever with the concept of notability, and being linked to/attached to a wikiproject is in no way whatsoever a proof of notability (even if "probable"). It just means that the article contains keywords that linked it to a wikiproject and is added to it for maintenance purposes. Period. Notability is not inherited, and is only dealt with using WP:GNG.

Saying that "projects tag articles because they are aware that they are probably notable" is not "assuming good faith", it is an erroneous statement that ignores Wikipedia's basic functioning (and I'm saying that with good faith, I'm only making a factual statement). Articles are tagged just because they belong to a certain topic, and it is not up to wikiprojects to assess notability on their own. Notability only means "being GNG-compliant" and not "belonging to a wikiproject".

You also don't seem to be aware of why this article was put up for deletion. It is not because it is a "bad" article (as in "badly written), nor because of a lack of "in-line citations" (which just means any citation, wether from primary or secondary sources). The problem is that someone deemed the article not notable per the GNG, because it doesn't have any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And that is not something that can be "fixed", either you find sources, or you don't. From then on, I see no problem in having this discussion in an AfD process.

An AfD doesn't block members from the D&D project from commenting and doesn't block any discussion, on the contrary it just allows more people to comment on the issue, and as I said somewhere else, it is a good thing to include contributors who may have a more neutral view on D&D than D&D enthusiats (some of whom being likely to let their passion, their subjectivity for the topic, come before the actual notability policies). I think you don't like an approach that you probably see as a kind of "live or die" ultimatum, but this is how WP works. With millions of articles to manage, things get out of hand so quickly, especially concerning popular culture and fiction, which involves greater subjectivity (ie tastes in books, movies...) from the contributors, and has seen a lot of policy abuses.

That's why I consider that keeping the fate of this article at the D&D project's discretion wouldn't make a difference, and would actually be worse. It sources exist, then someone will bring them forth whether on a talk page or an AfD, deletion notices at least draw attention on the subject and allow the issue to be reviewed in a neutral way. I stand my ground, given your various misconceptions on the functioning of WP (whether on the role of a Wikiproject or on the definition of "reliable source", as we can see about the D&D Lexicon) your initial comment was uniformed at best and thus unhelpfud, and I only did my normal "duty" as an editor by pointing it out.Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, no coverage in independent reliable sources, just overgrown trivia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case. When the first deletion attempt was made, I pointed out that there is an encyclopedia called Dragonlance Lexicon and gave some background information to show that this was a well run encyclopaedia of Dragonlance material that is hosted by the world's leading Dragonlance website. (At that time I also suggested WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons should be alerted to the fact that this article requires attention.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shepheard (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This lexicon is not a reliable source, as per WP:USERG: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users."Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Milowent, GinsengBomb, and Big Mac. The fate of this article was being discussed on the talk page and could have been decided there instead of being prematurely brought to AFD. That said, this is a perfectly valid list article. BOZ (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why D&D articles should only be run at the discretion of D&D fans. There are a lot of people here whose opinion might differ from D&D enthusiasts, and I think its only fair to let them know of the issue with an AfD and allow them to express their views. In the end, it won't change anything if the article is discussed here or in the talk page (except that, of course, D&D fans are now more likely to be reminded of annoying things like WP:GNG that this article undisputably fails, a fact that they would have been likely to omit had this stayed a "family matter").

By the way, where are the independent sources proving that this is a "perfectly valid list article" ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, anywhere in this discussion, has even implied that (again, directly quoting you, which can be helpful in this sort of thing) "D&D articles should only be run at the discretion of D&D fans." Please stop putting words and concepts in other peoples' mouths. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only important thing is this: where are the sources?Folken de Fanel (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has long been established that series this notable have list articles for their characters and for their settings, to help people gain a greater understanding of them. List of Star Trek planets and List of Star Wars planets list and link to a rather large collection. For Middle Earth we have Realms of Arda, List of Middle-earth rivers, and List of Middle-earth roads. We have Abeir-Toril for the Forgotten Realms series. Check any series that has significant impact, and you'll find there are articles for its locations. I'm not making the argument that other things exist. I'm just pointing out that this has always been accepted in Wikipedia, and should anyone wish to change it, it should bring it up somewhere for discussion, not just repeatedly argued in one AFD after another. Dream Focus 08:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat unaware of where it could be brought up for discussion. Do you know the proper place to discuss whether articles like this should exist on Wikipedia?--New questions? 05:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Dream Focus 14:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major setting for both a game and a series of novels. Plenty of RS exist such as 1, 2, and most especially 3 which appears to be an independently published set of maps for these fictional locations. The WP:GNG is met, and these sources should render several conditional/presumptive delete !votes (e.g., "Unless additional sources can be found that are reliable third-party sources..") null. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just want to point out that the third reference is not an independently published source. It is an official product in the Dragonlance line, that was published by Sovereign Press, the company who at the time had the license to publish official Dragonlance game material. So, I'm afraid that one is an entirely first party source. I am personally abstaining from voting, since while I am in favor of keeping, I have no Wikipedia policy to make a strong argument, but I just felt this should be pointed out. Rorshacma (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll just add that the first 2 sources aren't GNG-compliant. It indeed requires "significant coverage" meaning that "sources address the subject directly in detail [...] more than a trivial mention", and that's exactly what these sources are, just trivial mention, which Jclemens used just because he got a hit with the word "Krynn", but when you actually read the text, it doesn't go beyond the mere mention of the word, none of the source even elaborate beyond one sentence (and here, with "Krynn" not even being the main topic of the sentence but just one example among others). So no, GNG is absolutely not met with these sources.
Inclusionists should really take their research more seriously instead of rushing to misguidedly claim "passes GNG !" or "independent !" with the first google hit...Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quality article that easily passes GNG, per Jclemens. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't pass GNG, as proved above.Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cant agree. None of the delete arguments are at all convincing. Whereas the keep arguments are well reasoned and evidence based. Several of them haven't even been addressed by delete voters – for example, you dont seem to have answered BigMac's Death Knight argument. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is wrong. The keep arguments are not evidence based. Jclemens was wrong in saying his sources are independent and "significant coverage". That is factual and you know it. I have answered everything that BigMac said.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article consists only of plot summary, which per WP:WAF our articles should not. Treatment of fictional works must occur from a real-world perspective, and excessive in-universe content is better suited to fan media. The requirement of WP:V#Notability that article subjects (in this case, "Dragonlance" locations) must be the subject of reliable third-party coverage is not met; Jclemens's sources above may establish notability for the "Dragonlance" setting as a whole, but not for this list of fictional geography, which the sources do not address. Sandstein 05:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect/refocus to allow for content to be merged elsewhere, but don't keep as it is. I am usually very critical of location articles, as they are usually dumping grounds for plot, original research or excessive fictional detail, all of which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Working on a location article myself at the moment with these issues (World of A Song of Ice and Fire), I've found that real-world information is essential, possibly coming from e.g. (1) availability of different official maps, (2) inspiration commentary by the authors on the individual locations, (3) a screen adaptation of this fictional world with real-world production commentary (e.g. filming locations). JClemens provided sources that may serve to write a Themes in Dragonlance or World of Dragonlace article, but which don't really require this location list. Not every location needs to be named or covered, but this location list combined with the three individual location articles may be the stepping stone for a new World article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per failing WP:GNG & WP:N. Please note that I'm not implying that Dragonlance itself is not notable, rather that notability is not inherited. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of Earthsea

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

After trying do some research into Earthsea, I am not even sure if Earthsea itself is notable due to my inability to find any reliable secondary sources for this; perhaps that shall be an AfD discussion for another day. For now, though, if I cannot find any reliable sources for Earthsea, I do not know why the Islands of Earthsea are any more notable. Therefore, I believe that it does not meet the general notability guidelines. Right now, the only things that are on this article right now are primary sources; there seem to be some secondary sources mentioned, but they are not inline citations and I doubt that they feature anything more than a passing mention. New questions? 07:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an Earthsea wiki on wikia: http://earthsea.wikia.com/wiki/Earthsea_Wiki This info might be better off there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The geography of Earthsea is detailed in sources such as An Atlas of Fantasy. Warden (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do see that there is a map of Earthsea in that reference. Yet, is there any indication that the islands of Earthsea is itself important at all? The map might possibly make Earthsea itself notable (not sure yet), but with regards to its islands, it does not seem to be anything more than a passing mention.--New questions? 09:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Earthsea novel were the start of a new subgenre in scifi presenting a anthropological point of view. This is convered at collage level text dealing with sf litrature. If you research books on sf you will come by refrences. BO; talk 19:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, which books are those, and are there more than passing references to the islands themselves?--New questions? 22:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a huge Earthsea fan (which, BTW, is a notable series by a highly respected author), but not of this article. Yes, various islands are named on maps, but nothing happens on most of them. It also has an objectionable WP:OR element (surface areas calculated by measuring said maps). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally, articles about fiction need to have more than a plot summary. If the article is revised to demonstrate how these islands have affected the real world, then I'm willing to change my vote, but as it is, I'm in the Islands of Delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per questions earlier comments. Might want to consider a merging location if their is another geography of Earthsea article, but as Dondegroovily points out we need something more then summary to make the article sticky, Sadads (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Clarityfiend is entirely correct. highly notable book series, highly notable fictional world, but only a few islands are mentioned in detail in the books, most are just names on maps, and possibly only a handful of the islands could possibly have been given any coverage in literary journals, etc. the list belongs at the earthsea wiki, not here.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.132.26 (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence meets WP:BAND, WP:GNG. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Coalition

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

Contested PROD. No indication of meeting WP:BAND. January (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found this article while searching. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is some Missouri political movement to redirect this to. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing here but a lot of name-dropping, WP:CRUFT, and WP:PEACOCKery. Had I found this article first, I'd probably have tagged it for {{db-band}} speedy deletion. -- WikHead (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian National University#Residential halls and colleges. JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burton & Garran Hall

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

Non-notable hostel. No independent refs. Tagged for notability > 2 years. PROD and notability tag removed by SPA. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian National University#Residential halls and colleges. Plausible search term, but not enough independent coverage to warrant an article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jenks24. As is the case with (almost?) all Australian university 'colleges', this provides accommodation and some pastoral care only, and doesn't deliver any teaching or award qualifications. It's not even one of the ANU's better-known accommodation halls. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of meeting notability guidelines. There is also an request to delete, apparently from the article subject. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jorden Moir

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

Article about a professional footbag player, proposed for deletion by someone who apparently is the subject. No actual activity in the article for five years. I'd rather put this up on Articles for Deletion than delete it outright. I vote delete myself. JIP | Talk 03:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any evidence of notability, although there may be local press lurking somewhere. Maybe I'm a little prejudiced against footbag, but it doesn't seem like a topic with wide interest, and if the subject wants it deleted, I dont' see a pressing need to keep it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much love for anyone who can do anything with a footbag, of course, but I don't see the case for the subject's notability under our criteria. That the subject may have made the request only puts me further onto the Delete side of the scale. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Queensland. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology

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

Non-notable university faculty. No independent refs. Searching in google / google news finds plenty of mentions, but no in-depth coverage as per WP:CORP. PROD removed by SPA. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent verification of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge a very summarized version with University of Queensland. Non-notable faculty of a school by WP:CORPDEPTH and no inherited notability. -Well-rested ^Talk 06:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Merge to University of Queensland, but there are no citations or references in the article at all, so Redirect it instead. The use of "we" to refer to the faculty is not appropriate and makes it clear that there was a significant COI at some point in writing the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Purple Swamphen#Escapes and introductions. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Swamphens in North America

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

I am unsure what exactly makes this particular bird notable as an introduced species (as opposed to all other introduced species); I'd simply redirect it, but the that would result in a very unlikely searchterm. So, does this one species really warrant its own article? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. --Melburnian (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. Additional papers to the one already mentioned devoted to this topic (or more specifically, "Purples Swamphens in Florida") establish it as an independently notable one including:- Attempted eradication of Porphyrio porphyrio Linnaeus in the Florida Everglades, A Natural History of the Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) (University of Florida) and Florida's Introduced Birds: Purple Swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio) Keep.--Melburnian (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Purple Swamphen#Escapes and introductions. There's no need for a separate article, as the main page is not exactly overlong. This is nowhere near as notable as Rabbits in Australia. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (to wp:preserve useful content), then delete. There probably is enough information to warrant a separate article, but unless someone is willing to do the work of writing a full-size article, including the limited info that's here in the parent species article seems like the best course of action. I agree that a redirect isn't needed, as this is an unlikely search term. SP-KP (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there SP-KP. Was there any particular reason that you wanted to merge and delete? Because this is not something that Wikipedia's content licence allows us to do (at least not without jumping through a few hoops.) Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Purple Swamphen#Escapes and introductions per Clarityfiend.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Article speedily deleted by User:Sadads under criteria G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Sheepskins

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

This company is not noteworthy and appears simply as an advertisment for this company.--Wikiguy1974 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting just this one article, since it's not clear whether all of the articles were bundled into the nomination, and none of the other articles had AfD templates on them for the duration of this discussion. Also, AfD participants are reminded that they should only make one bolded vote per AfD. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

I am unsure whether this new article Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Andhra Pradesh really serves any useful purpose. It is a straight copy from the official list. That list is available online, is cited in articles, and its content is liable to change from time to time because the reservation system (a form of positive discrimination) is in constant flux. If we are going to start adding articles based entirely on a single primary source then our count will grow dramatically and without adding anything to information that is already available in a single authoritative public document. Sitush (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that the user has created many articles such as this - eg: Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Haryana - and seems rarely to respond to comments on their talk page despite a prolific number of queries being posted there. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further examples, all created by the same person:

Central List of Other Backward Classes in Rajasthan Central List of Other Backward Classes Uttar Pradesh Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Gujarat Central List of Other Backward Classes of Bihar Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Punjab Central List of Other Backward Classes in Delhi Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Haryana Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Madhya Pradesh Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Jammu and Kashmir Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of West Bengal Central List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Himachal Pradesh State List of Other Backward Classes of Bihar State List of Other Backward Classes for the State of West Bengal State List of Other Backward Classes in Delhi State List of Other Backward Classes for the State of Rajasthan List of Scheduled Castes in Punjab: And then we have articles such as List of Scheduled Castes in Haryana that also appear to be of dubious merit. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not sure why you have nominated this deletion. Many of the communities and classes refered to also have articles. It is a quick and easy reference. Not sure by what is meant by dubious merit. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have slightly refactored the above comment's formatting to prevent it from breaking the layout of the AFD index. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would these lists fall under WP:LIST? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep i think it's under WP:INCST.Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments @ Bhavinkundaliya - I am unsure of the relevance in referring to an inactive Wikiproject that was begun by a known POV pusher. @ WALTHAM2: they add nothing except maintenance overhead (the lists change). These articles are just a copy/paste of official documents that are in any case cited directly when required, ie: in articles about the specific communities. Since we cannot rely on the content in these articles as a source for other articles, there is little point in keeping them. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Sitush (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- means, all articles mention above should be delete as group deletion? Bhavinkundaliya (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Struck by Sitush - you do not get to !vote twice I object to the character assination, what do you mean by known POV pusher. If have a genuine argument, state it. Please retract this. I have try very hard to get as many sources as I can. Sitush has never once responded to various messages left on his talk page. As editors with mutual interest, it would be lot healthier to have dialogue.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Waltham2 to retract their allegation. I did not call Waltham2 a pov pusher, nor have any reason to do so. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will retract. We all want a scholarly discussion. But please everyone, no one personal comments. --WALTHAM2 (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas per Sitush concerns and these lists are dubious at best.obc lists are a big problem.some castes as a whole are considered forward by central government but state governments have given obc status due to political considerations.there is also the issue of only a subacaste being given obc status while the said caste as a whole is forward.such lists try to simplify this complex issue.LinguisticGeek 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ Delete. This is relevant information, so I'm not saying we shouldn't use it. However, if it is just a direct copy of official govt sources, and those sources are changing, it would seem to me to be just as useful, and a lot more reliable, to just use external links to the govt sources themselves - keeping our own copies of dynamic govt sources seems like a bit of a maintenance nightmare. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete all - per Linguisticgeek but mainly per WP:NOTREPOSITORY #3 and WP:NPS - it is not the business of an encyclopedia to reproduce source documents available elsewhere. The risk is that our article becomes out of date if the original changes. We should link to documents like this from the relevant articles, not reproduce them. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for reproducing source documents verbatim, especially if they are liable to change. Sandstein 05:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Open (table hockey)

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

Not clear what sport it is, no context, no sources, hardly any internet hits. Fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another table hockey entry from TH guru. No media coverage. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major tournament for a sport, just needs formatting cleanup. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Championships_%28Table_Hockey%29 for my other arguement.GuzzyG (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think you can argue that a competition is notable simply because it is a play-off tournament in a sport/game which has "hockey" in its name. Table hockey is not exactly on a par with ice hockey or field hockey........ --ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck above comment as Monterey Bay changed his/her !vote and it no longer applies -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure tournament in an obscure game (not sport, IMO, unless Subbuteo is also considered a sport) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Phillips (music manager)

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

Lacks notability. The company of which he is claimed to be CEO doesn't have multiple reliable sources itself, as CEO he is even less notable. The references do not make a case to meet WP:BIO QU ^TalkQu 13:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article in various ways which I hope should justify it's existence. Firstly, I removed the CEO of Diraj Media Group aspect in the opener as the company is very much at the blueprint stage and therefore, until it's all in motion - it shouldn't be included here.

Secondly - I updated the references for the songwriting credits Aaron holds which gave him his name and platform in the music industry. The sources are the music publishers website so - it's as reliably as possible. His name is presented as "Phillips Aaron" in the writing credits of the tracks mentioned.

I will continue to improve the article and add further references where suggested - but I hope you can see that I have took active steps to maintain the standards Wikipedia sets for criteria of submission. Hanzohattorio (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Hanzohattorio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hanzohattorio (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just looked at the references, and as sources go, they just aren't strong enough to support an article. Numbers 1-3 are simple database lookups, number 4 is a lyrics site, number 5 is a press release, and number 6 doesn't mention the subject. If there isn't at least one article that's primarily about the subject, there's nothing to use as a basis for an article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dori on this one. Doesn't seem entirely notable and not referenced very well. LogicalCreator (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per Joe Decker's improvements. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Ryan

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. No reliably sourced biographical content; relevant references are either blogs, promo pages, or both. All GNews/GBooks hits are spurious or trivial (cast lists/reports). The claimed "Feminist Porn Award" fails the well-known/significant test and does not contribute to notability; it is given out by a retailer to promote products it sells. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "well-known/significant test"? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The one in WP:ANYBIO. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant standards and guidelines; they've been mentioned in so many AFDS you've participated in that you really ought to know them by now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am familiar with WP:ANYBIO, thank you (which you didn't even mention at first), so for once you can actually stop with the attitude. And by the way, what isn't a promo page in your eyes? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable. All the sources are pretty spammy. RafikiSykes (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How? They're not from blogs, and they're not passing mentions or anything like that. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough and concise/well-written article. LogicalCreator (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a real bio - omits real name and other details. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no longer deemed notable. BO; talk 18:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not a real bio"? What do you mean? And what other details does the article omit? Also, the reason her real name isn't there is because I couldn't find a reliable source for that. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This incessant stream of purposefully obtuse questions to those who don't share your opinions is tendentious and has become disruptive. It appears intended to drive those who you disagree with away from discussions rather than promoting consensus resolutions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm being disruptive? Look who's talking. And I have a right to voice my opinion if I disagree. Not only do you need to stop stalking, but how about actually commenting on the discussion instead of me? (Makes me wonder if you're only against these articles because I'm the one that created them.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Closing admin - WP:PORNBIO is depreciated and should be disregarded. Hipocrite (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, not that again. I have already responded to that here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The FPA award and the AVN nomination were both documented in third-party coverage, per sources I've added. Some of the other bloggish sources do deserve trimming, however. Claims of WP:PORNBIO's death are, at this moment, demonstrably premature. Finally, two of the sources I've added edge towards WP:GNG (KOMO and one of the two Xtra Vancouver pieces), which in combination with the award and nom seems in total to reach the notability bar. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per joe decker. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per joe decker. Addressing perceived issues is always better than deleting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability; also concerns about promotional content. Nothing in this close should be taken as prohibiting nor requiring a redirect to "home care". joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home Care Assistance

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

Horrible sourcing, no real evidence of notability, just some trivial mentions in the press, usually barely talking about the actual subject.

Only actual claim for notability is based on the Franchise Times - who don't appear to be notable - saying they grew quickly compared to... well, as far as I can tell from the source, it's fastest growth of franchises of new companies who are covered by a paid service named FRANdata, are franchises, and who meet a variety of other requirements. Not exactly an unambiguous demonstration of notability.

And, of course, there's the issue that it was created by User:Expewikiwriter, a now-blocked sockmaster paid group account. 86.** IP (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it possible that this could be used as a redirect for home care? By this I mean that it'd be "home care assistance" along the lines that someone would be searching for more information about home care. I know that "home care" itself would pop up first, but this might have potential as a redirect.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, it should probably be deleted first, then redirected. Otherwise, you're just encouraging a sudden easter egg-ish change to the link from a talk on home care to a company's page. There are, after all, a lot of socks around, so a little more care is probably in order. Also, shouldn't that be the lowercase home care assistance? 86.** IP (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably- I'm sort of ambivalent about using it as a redirect for the exact reasons you've stated, but thought it might work as a redirect. I'm good with it not being a redirect and just being deleted as well, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteThis obviously fails WP:GNG, add in User:Expewikiwriter and I'm dissapointed there aren't guidlines that would allow admins to delete articles from accounts like this immediately. Not to mention Wikipedia is not a directory,listing service,advertising,etc.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the others - CORP doesn't appear to be met. Had a look for better sources but could only find press release after press release. Ambivalent about the redirect. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Richmond. Content is entirely unsourced, so cannot be merged as is, but editors can merge anything sourceable from the history. Sandstein 16:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gottwald Center for the Sciences

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

This building is simply non-notable from Wikipedia's perspective. There is no need for it to have its own article, and a mention in the broader University of Richmond article is sufficient if it needs to be included somewhere. WildCowboy (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Richmond. Doesn't seem notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to University of Richmond. This does not warrant a stand-alone article. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. This doesn't appear to be a distinct educational institution, so isn't exempt IMO. It's simply a building which houses some science departments. Searching the web for its history didn't turn anything up for me. Is it named after a notable Gottwald? Who knows? Unsourced and no content asserting notability worth merging. (Possibly retain a redirect to University of Richmond#Campus, if deemed a notable serach term.) 15:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pungle

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

I can't find evidence that this is a term in general use. It seems to be mainly associated with (and coined by) the one band, which does not have a Wikipedia article of its own. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. References are all last.fm pages. Not at all acceptable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see any reliable evidence that this is a notable genre. Fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-existent genre. For a discussion (sometimes absurd) of this non-genre, see Talk:Pungle. Cresix (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Great concept, but we really need some more notability in music. In short, it has to come up from underground. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Senator2029 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nom has not refuted recent keep !votes, others previously expressing delete opinions haven't either (although one editor has made no recent contributions and the other is now blocked). Only post-Arxiloxos sources !vote is qualified as a "weak" delete. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Stenholm

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

Does not appear to be notable, either as a film director (per WP:FILMMAKER, no major work of note) or as the creator of an organization (Unusual Films is not notable). Reliance of the article on sources connected to her employer (Bob Jones University) adds to the case for non-notability and deletion. —Eustress ^talk 19:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more non-BJU references. The fact that Stenholm is a pioneer female director is in itself enough to make her notable.--John Foxe (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Pioneer" according to who? —Eustress ^talk 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turner, historian of BJU: "She became one of only a handful of women in the United States to direct feature films and perhaps the first Christian woman ever to do so." (306) I stand corrected if you can come up with a WP:RS that says the contrary.--John Foxe (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Turner is a reliable source since he's not independent. —Eustress ^talk 01:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We sometimes have to take what we can get in the way of sources for living people, and you've presented no evidence that Turner's wrong.--John Foxe (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the main problem is that it doesn't seem like any of the films for which she is a director seems notable enough for a mention in an independent source. Even IMDB bio can't identify which of her films is more notable than the others. Alice Guy-Blaché was a christian woman director from the silent age, and Lois Weber was from "a devout middle class Christian family of Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry" directed during the so-called Golden Age. So the claim that she "may be the first christian women ever to do so" is clearly uninformed puffing --Symes (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Dorothy Arzner seems to have been Christian and directed feature films before Stenholm (source Judith Mayne, Directed by Dorothy Arzner, Indiana University Press, 1994, p 85: describes her interest in Christian Science, role in Religion in Science Foundation, and general spirituality). This is anyway irrelevant, as perhaps the first Christian American female film director is not a major claim to fame. Did any of her films receive a wide theatrical release or any coverage in the mainstream press? There's currently no evidence of independent sources (i.e. not by Stenholm or her employer) covering her in detail: we need reviews of films, articles or books giving her more than a sentence, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can understand the skepticism expressed above about this biography, especially in light of some puffy language (e.g., I agree that "first Christian woman director" is both unsupportable and inherently meaningless). But there are independent sources out there, per GBooks[4] and GNews[5]. Much of this material is old, and paywalls get in the way, as always, but GBooks snippets indicate that she has been discussed in a variety of nonreligious publications; a couple of examples are American Cinematographer[6] and Women who make movies[7]. Though sketchy, these sources seem sufficient to establish that she is a notable figure in the history of religious film in the U.S. (And, at a minimum, this content could be merged to and used at Bob Jones University#Unusual Films.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep, in light of independent sources cited by Arxiloxos. There's also this, for what it's worth. There are a couple of google news hits with the married name "Mrs Gilbert Stenholm", and one or two more with "Mrs Stenholm"+director. Nothing major, but enough to indicate that she had some (minor) notability in her (pre-internet) time. Clearly not the first Christian woman to direct films (except perhaps in some idiosyncratic definition of "Christian" in use at BJU), but notable enough for our purposes. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I still don't see that any of the films or information on this director seems notable enough for a mention in an independent source. However, the improvement made recently have made it somewhat better.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that there are insufficient sources to support the content are compelling. WP:V is a core policy and brooks no compromise, even for subjects where sources are difficult to find. Sandstein 05:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five Base Yogas

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

Perhaps some of this could be merged into the Yoga article. JoelWhy (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no sources. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~:When I nominate an article for deletion, am I supposed to also "vote"? Or, is it just assumed I'm in favor of the deletion based on my nominating the article? In any case, I'm not sure whether I should waste my time editing the revisions made today (which are full of unsubstantiated claims) or just wait until it's deleted in its entirety.JoelWhy (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck delete !vote above from the nominator. The nomination also counts as your vote, and users are only allowed one vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The editor is a domain expert working in good faith to improve this article about a non-western culture. Yoga has for most of its history been disseminated oraly and has few written sources. So the sources presented may well be reliable. I am certain that with more encouragemnt notability and good quality can be established. It is the nominator who has not demonstrated good faith here - if he sees problems he should cooperate with the editor and use his editorial skill to point out specific problems WP:RESPTAG to indicating the most glaring ommisions - otherwise how can the editor make a better article? In a case such as this Afd should be the alternative of last resort. BO; talk 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've not demonstrated good faith? What the hell are you talking about? Aside from a per se violation of WP:AGFC, your comment is patently absurd. I suggested the content be merged with the Yoga article, rather than outright delete, as this didn't seem notable enough to warrant its own page. I placed an extensive list of tags for improving the page based on the original train wreck of page that it started with. I've done a copious amount of editing on the article to improve it and remove the extensive violations of NPOV. So, next time, do a little research before making baseless criticisms.JoelWhy (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment III've looked at the newly added references. None of them appear to be reliable. We don't allow for special pleadings to determine the reliability of references saying that the traditions are 'passed down orally' and therefore we can use random blogs to reference them. If the editors have to resort to random blogs for references, it further highlights that the topic isn't notable. There must be 1,000,000 books, journals, articles, etc. on Yoga^{[citation needed]}. Either someone will find some noteworthy ones discussing "Five Base Yogas" or else it will evidence that it should, in fact, be deleted.

Rebuttal — thanks for informing me about the WP:AGFC. I reviewed the entire history before making my statement above. I find it ironic that you did not examine the history and sources in detail before launching this diatribe — so please don't claim a higher moral ground.

Least you have forgotten, you placed the Afd notice before making any suggestions for improvement. You used only article wide notices so offered the other editors no indication where and what the NPOV, or other issues are in this article - nothing in the talk page and no inline citations. On the other habd the original editor has addressed the issue of context, content and has researched additional sources. He may also surprise you if you bother to discuss these problem. AFAIK The publications of books on yoga in the west date from 1960 — oral dissemination is still the main format or transmitting this vulnerable tradition. This certainly has bearing on what would be viewed as a reliable source by Wikipedia. However I will ask my mentor to look into this matter - since he speaks and reads Sanscrit. Merging into Yoga? This isn't the correct forum for that discussion but since you entertain this alternative than I'd suggest that Yoga is already long enough so Five Bases should be in its own article.BO; talk 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I placed the Afd tag a full 4 minutes before tagging it. Oh, what an unjust world we live in...

I'm doing new page patrols and I don't have time to go line by line through every article noting every single fault. If it's a half-decent page that needs work, I put in the effort. But, for this? I googled "Five Base Yogas", and you know what I found? Next to nothing. Right now, the number 1 hit for this topic on Google is this Wiki page. The first non-Wiki page with this title is a spam page selling pants. After that? NOTHING. It's just pages that have content from this newly created Wiki page. So, why didn't I spend more time discussing this with the author? Because, when you have a page that seems to be so conclusively non-notable, you put an Afd tag, giving the author the opportunity to make improvements, and then you move on.

It's a bit frustrating to do this and be met with accusations of bad faith, followed with unsupportable arguments that this is an oral tradition, so we shouldn't expect much in the way of reliable sources. Oral dissemination, are you kidding me?! Amazon has more than 4,000 books dealing with yoga (but none mentioning "five base yogas," AFAIK.) Google Scholar has scores of articles discussing Yoga, its history, etc. Articles discussing "five base yogas"? I didn't find a single one.JoelWhy (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've found no sources for "five base yoga" in google/gbooks or anywhere else. Of the links in the article:

- [8] - doesn't contain any mention of "five base yoga", although it talks about bases in yoga. (It does however show seven chakras.)

- [9] - This link shows five things (Life Force, Biomagnetism, Body, Mind, and Sexual Fluids), but these do not match up with the 'five bases' described in the article. Again, there is no mention of 'Five Bases Yoga' in this source.

- [10] - This link describes five 'sheaths of the mind' (bodily needs, emotional thoughts, function and results of life-force, link with Universal function, realization of Truth and communion with it), but these do not match up with the 'five bases' described in the article. Again, there is no mention of 'Five Bases Yoga' in this source.

- [11] - This article talks about seven chakras and six elements (Space, Air, Fire, Water, Earth, Mind). This seems to match up with some of what the article is talking about, but still contains no reference to 'Five Bases Yoga'.

In conclusion, as it currently stands the article has no valid sources and it appears to be WP:OR.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 15:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Has it crossed your mind that this editor is not a native speaker of English (looked at his user page)? Perhaps your failure with a google search might have been an indicator or his odd sentence formation. Try searching for '"five elements" yoga'

Comment - Which editor are you referring to? And what does the editor's country of origin have to do with the lack of valid sources which support the article?--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty on "five elements" and yoga. If that's what he meant, than it changes the discussion entirely. (I'm not convinced that this is what he meant, but I certainly am open to the possibility.) But, the fact that you're still trying to make it seem as if I didn't do my due diligence because I didn't realize that "five base yogas" actually means "five elements of yoga" says less about me as an editor and far more about you and you're inability to simply apologize and admit that you're wrong. (Ironic, given that you're apparently studying yoga, a discipline which is supposed to teach enlightenment.)JoelWhy (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article will need a rename, and much better sources if it's about 'five elements yoga'. I still believe that 'Five Bases Yoga' should be deleted as the name is meaningless and not used to describe the subject.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm fine with that. I haven't looked into 'five elements yoga' enough to know whether it warrants its own page, etc, I just looked enough to see that it's at least something which exists outside the confines of Wikipedia.JoelWhy (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs work but it does convey the basic concept of 5 elements being the base of some yoga paths. "The text opens with a description of the absolute dimension of Kunjed Gyalpo, the primordial state of bodhicitta, whence everything manifests: the five elements as the base of samsara and nirvana". The problem in finding references is related to the many different ways of stating the same concept, while also dealing with language & culture issues> Jeepday (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. By the strength of the arguments, it was closer to keep than delete. Georgia Guy's sanity had no bearing on my decision. ‑Scottywong | express _ 23:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBS idents

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

Somehow, this article has survived four prior AFDs, none of which have helped the fact that it's still an indiscriminate collection of info. Some details are sourced but by and large the article is made up of WP:RS with no critical analysis to suggest why it's actually notable outside of the company it represents. All other prior AFDs have only said "it's useful". WP:IINFO and WP:RS apply — no sources give any significant detail to the logos themselves or critical commentary on them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, nom #2 was "keep, it was just AFDed last year", and nom #4 was malformed, so don't let that #5 here scare you. Either way, the other prior AFDs were kept entirely due to WP:SOFIXIT arguments without proving in any fashion that there was a way to fix it. No independent sources were brought forth, nor was notability ever proven; most arguments were just WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to know what to do when you feel extremely afraid that an article will be deleted per Afd. I feel extremely afraid that this article will be deleted. (Too afraid that even simply voting to keep will not help.) Any suggestions?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to say here other than, what the heck are you "afraid" of? WP:NOTTHERAPY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the article will be deleted this time. Georgia guy (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's worth getting all tied up over? Really? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The history of prior AFDs is not convincing, as none were well attended or thoroughly discussed. A history of logos (or most any other business attribute) is not an encyclopedic subject apart from the organization it represents, absent a showing that there is something about this particular organization or its particular logos that makes it a distinct subject. With nearly every highly notable subject one could call out a particular aspect of its structure or history (history of IBM plant closure, history of New York Metropolitan Police union negotiating sessions, history of pedestrian fatalities at the intersection of 9th and Main Street) and find enough sources to write an article, even sources that synthesize it all to suggest there is a connection. But there are only a handful of logos or corporate branding histories that have their own articles here: I Love New York, Nike's Swoosh, the Google logo. There must be a thousand US organizations equally as prominent as PBS, each with its own history of logos and branding. Do we want to have separate articles about each of their logos? If not, would we just have some random articles here and there when people care to create them? That's not a good way to organize information for an encyclopedia. There has to be some reason, a pattern, some service to the reader. This is well-sourced, interesting information to be sure and it would be a shame to lose that much effort. This just isn't the right place for it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) The four prior AfDs, all keeps, do contain substantive discussion, notably Viriditas' comments at the third AfD and Black Falcon's at the second, and show a broad consensus in favor of the notability of this subject. (2) The concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NBC logos (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Broadcasting Company logos (3rd nomination) demonstrate that there is still support for the notability and encyclopedic nature of network logo history, a broader topic of which this article is a significant part. Deleting this article would damage Wikipedia's currently comprehensive coverage of the topic. (4) The PBS logo in particular, created by the notable designer Herb Lubalin and later revised by the equally notable designers Chermayeff & Geismar, and has been the subject of substantial coverage over the years. I have added some of the available sources, and GBooks and GNews searches indicate that more sources exist off-line or behind paywalls, plus a segment of the highly regarded 1982 series Media Probes[12]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Arxiloxos. I also invoke a hypothetical future Wikipedia rule that makes it possible to prevent WP from becoming redundant to a thorough Google search. Anarchangel (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. This article does not establish why the logos in themselves are notable, merely that "PBS had a lot of logos". Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether a logo itself is notable in its own right can decide whether it can get its own article, such as PBS 1971 logo. However, there are no such articles; just this article, talking about all the logos PBS has had, as a part of how the network has changed over its 42-year history. Georgia guy (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just don't see the encyclopedic value here; to me this qualifies as trivia or completism. Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with User:Viriditas' analysis in the 3rd AfD. In theory it could be appropriate to merge this article to the Public Broadcasting System article, but that would give undue weight to this topic within that article and so retaining as a separate standalone article is most appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since, for example, almost all the logos are slight variations of the same image, this entry is arguably overlong already. Hairhorn (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot endorse the claim that it is an indiscriminate list. BO; talk 11:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had a dream last night in which this article was deleted per this Afd. Georgia guy (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Bahadurgarh earthquake

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

It's the usual thing that happens with earthquake articles. It happens, the USGS' earthquake monitoring program reports it, the press repeats it and says "no casualties or damage were reported;" think of it like this – earthquakes happen every day, whether we notice them or not. Even if we do notice them, as I said, there's no damage, and that's the case here. This article basically said "an earthquake occurred in XXX at XXX, and it was felt". WP:GNG. hf24 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting standards on notability. Mikenorton (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like fad. BO; talk 11:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Secret of success 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant, no known effects. A 4.9 temblor is nothing. You might not even notice it if you are walking around. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two "keep" opinions cannot be taken into account as they do not address, or are at odds with, our inclusion requirements (WP:V#Notability), which focus on third-party coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 05:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classics Illustrated Special Issue: The United Nations

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

I do not see evidence that this specific issue meets the notability criteria. There were other issues about Real-World organisations (such as the RCMP), and the rarity of the issue does not make it notable. The majority of the references are at retail/auction websites, the others do not appear to meet the required standard. I am a fan of the Classics Illustrated series in its various forms - but do not think that this specific issue is notable. I would be happy for a "Merge/Redirect to Classics Illustrated" outcome to this AfD, but feel that the correct outcome would be "Delete". PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it is notable because it is about a notable organization. That's what is special about it. - AnakngAraw (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an edition of a magazine about the organisation, not about the organisation. The United Nations is notable, but most books and magazines about it are not. I would contend that this is an example of one which is not. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 07:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcing strong keep - as author and as an inclusionist of more knowledge, for a more open Wikipedia. Article existing since July 2011. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, those do not really counter the reason I nominated this article for deletion. How long it has existed and who the author is not relevant to whether the article is kept. "A more open Wikipedia" is a nice idea, but content needs to meet the criteria for inclusion. I looked to find some sources which would justify keeping this article, but I could not - hence the nomination for deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. If we consider only the editing side of his work, user AnakngAraw did a very nice job on this article. He's to be commended for that, and I'm sorry to have to !vote to delete. Unfortunately there's just nothing about it that even comes close to satisfying wp:note or, more specifically, wp:notability (books). Likewise for many of his articles, I'm afraid. Per my talk page comments, his Lion's Head (Kennon Road) article could also have been subject to an AfD for notability problems, before I added refs to establish that. Looking through his edit history, briefly, his recent Split Jack article also seems doubtful to me re notability, as independent from Jumping Jack, especially. Too, his First Lady of the World book article, and his Score the Goals and U.N. Force comic book articles all seem to me to fail notability requirements, although you have to look at the many listed refs to see that. I value the editor's obviously good intentions, but he could save both himself and his fellow editors considerable time if he would study our various wp:note guidelines before he creates any more articles. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Nine

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No reliably sourced biographical content, no actual assertion of notability. All GNews/GBooks hits are trivial or spurious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:ENT. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all reasons cited BO; talk 11:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not the subject of multiple substantial pieces in so-called reliable, independent sources. I also want to add my loathing of all pseudo-biographies which do not include actual names and actual biographic information. Failing to achieve that minimum reasonable expectation for a biographic piece renders this an example of fan cruft, in my estimation. This situation is endemic for porn bios — mainly because there is no substantial, reliable, independent sourcing available. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a bit of sourcing for a racehorse of the same name, [13] but nothing significant and reliable that I was able to find on the actress. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability of any kind. No evidence of multiple on trivial coverage. Oxy20 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delte fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Closing admin - WP:PORNBIO is depreciated and should be ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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