Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 October	2 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Room 77

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

No assertion of notability. Existence is not notability, nor is it notable for the payment types it accepts. MSJapan (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has notable references. Its payment type is notable.--74.196.114.169 (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — 74.196.114.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IP blocked 72h for socking. MSJapan (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. My local Fish'n'Chips accepts monopoly money as money. Doesn't make it notable. Dengero (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The digital currency is notable, but not the restaurant that accepts it. That fact could be merged into the main article.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that this restaurant accepts Bitcoin warrants a mention in the Bitcoin article, not an article. There's no evidence this restaurant is othewise notable StarM 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of redheads

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

In theory this is a WP:CSD#G4: A list of this type was deleted at AfD previously on the basis that hair color is a ridiculous, near-indiscriminate basis for a list. If hair color is an appropriate basis for a list article, then why not "List of black-haired people," which would be virtually everyone in several large racial/ethnic groups? The only reason I hesitated and went to AfD instead of speedy is that the previous discussion was in back in 2006. However, the reasoning seems as valid now as it was then, so unless the view of the community has significantly changed, it seems that this article should be deleted. RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My initial reaction, glancing at the topic, was "how ridiculous." But this is a sourced list and there are multiple independently published books on the topic. Volosy krasnyi — chelovek opasnyi. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red hair. Far too indiscriminate to be a useful standalone list, but the most famous (not Eric Stoltz) deserve a listing somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Too ridiculous to have an article of its own based on a hair colour. Dengero (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cited sources include an encyclopedia which contains a similar list of red-headed people and so WP:LISTN is satisfied. Warden (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per WP:LISTN—sourced? Yes. Notable? Yeh. —Theo polisme 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets LISTN. Glad to see the list does *not* include dyed hair. The Steve 07:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps members of the list should copy Wikipedia by hand... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previously deleted, why is it any more relevant now? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources in the article were published after the date of that earlier AFD and so we have new evidence to consider. My impression is that redheads, as a group, are getting more attention now. For example, here's a fresh study which is currently appearing in the press. Warden (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are, as the nomination states, we'd need a different article for people of every single hair colour. I fail to see why we would have any standalone article of this type. At the very most, a summary of this article could be put into the Red hair page. This does not need its own article.Lukeno94 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ALLORNOTHING, "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article." If people have written about this topic and so made it notable, this does not mean that we have to create similar articles for every other colour of the rainbow. Warden (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are abundant sources listing redheads; many find it an interesting topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this form. Because of the large size of the group, this will either become unmanageably large or be limited to a random selection of notable redheads; in either case it's not very useful and creates BLP overhead. Categorization is the better approach. Sandstein 08:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They get coverage for being redheads. Type in any of the names on the list and "redhead" OR "red hair" and you get results. When reliable sources talk about them, they mention this aspect of them. Dream Focus 15:29, 9 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Rural Bank of Binalbagan, Inc.

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

Unreferenced article for a subject that appears not to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. PROD from another editor was removed with a good faith agreement from original author (see article talk page) to add sources/references once the editor had more experience. Unfortunately, his has not happened. A search for potential references found only a generic directory listing. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since no new reliable sources has been added. Lack of notability as is. Dengero (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to delete because I haven't found any significant sources that are English. Google Books found insufficient results including this result that suggests they are active as of November 2011. I'm willing to withdraw my vote if sufficient sources are found. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with a search without the "Inc." I failed to find anything reliable, whether English or Tagalog (note that most Philippine media is in English). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom and the commenters' findings. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:25, 7 November 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:G11, WP:A7 and WP:G12 all apply. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janhavi Acharekar

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

Does not meet wp:author. Dwaipayan (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could've prod-ed it. But yes, lack of notability. Dengero (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dwaipayan (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 November 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. A9: Non-notable recording by artist with no Wikipedia entry Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eclectikos

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

The sources provided don't establish notability for the album. A couple of sources listed may give the ensemble some notability but it is very minimal and localized to Southern California. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Could've speedied with A9. Dengero (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Apparently there is some disagreement as to how the notability guideline affects a borderline case like this when the sources are single sentence comments about the subject. That needs to be clarified first at WP:NBOOK. Sudo Ghost 11:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Runelight

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

Declined PROD. Article has no references that establish notability for the subject; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Sudo Ghost 21:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added The Guardian and WorldCat. Noteworthy author. I only created this article as a trial but it has grown. I'm not an expert on book notability so I'll leave it to those who know. Victuallers (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books are not notable by the author's merit (with the exception of WP:BKCRIT #5), they need to be reliable on their own accord. There are two brief reviews, the rest are not reliable sources that go towards any notability, that's not enough to warrant a standalone article. - Sudo Ghost 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tried to clean up the article somewhat but something I've noticed in general with Harris's articles is that there is a LOT and I mean a LOT of fancruft, non-NPOV, and OR going on in these articles. I'd go so far as to guess that almost all of the articles concerning her need complete overhauls, so the problem in general with this article is fairly widespread throughout the articles concerning her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks acceptable after the clean up. Good job. Dengero (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are still inadqeuate, the article fails to meet the notability guidelines. How the article "looks" is not relevant. - Sudo Ghost 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple independent reliable reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as what? There are only two in the article. - SudoGhost 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just added. If you want any to verify let me know, they are all in commercial databases. I didn't even add all that showed up, this book has more reviews than most, could add a bunch more if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've looked at a few, they are sorely lacking in depth of any kind. Most of them seem to repeat the back of the book, followed by a brief sentence at the end that gives some sort of analysis. Those are insufficient for establishing any notability, as pointed at at WP:NBOOK. It's kind of telling that they aren't reviews when all of these 'reviews' say word-for-word the exact same thing and are a day or two within being the same exact publication date. - SudoGhost 20:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looking into it further, every one of them in the ~19 November 2011 date range are word-for-word the same exact press release summary. That isn't a review and doesn't contribute to notability. The others like this one are publisher-submitted summaries, not reviews. All books have these, and WP:NBOOK specifically points out that these do not contribute towards the notability of an article. - Sudo Ghost 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There were two dups now removed (wires will share stories across papers), the rest are all original reviews. I don't see evidence of press releases ie. a note at the bottom that sources it to the publisher or text that can be traced back to the publisher. If you believe there is, please be specific which ones and why so they can checked and removed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also to call these reviews "lacking in depth" is not accurate, some of them are long in depth detailed reviews, some others are shorter but they are dedicated reviews of the book. If anyone wants to read these reviews just let me know or post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I've looked through the sources, none of them establish any notability for the subject. For example, the "Norse code" reference is about the author with a few sentences actually discussing the book. The "There's a lot of meanness, stupidity and mischief." is a similar situation, about a civic event the author is holding, and mentions the book very briefly. These are sources about the author, and seem to reinforce the fact that this book is not notable, and should at the very least be redirected to the author's article. "Books New Norse tale is one Thor the young adults" is a standard synopsis from the publisher, one repeated word-for-word by other sources you provided. None of these muster any notability for the subject. - Sudo Ghost 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability is established by WP:BK #1: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I've gone ahead and removed some of the "other sources" you had trouble with and kept the strongest plus the 3 or 4 inline sources is 7 or 8 sources total. They are:

- Liverpool Echo (book review)
- School Librarian (book review)
- Manchester Evening News (book review)
- Daily Post
- Daily Post (about the book)
- The Guardian (book review)
- Daily Express (book review)
- Monsters and Critics (book review)

If you still have trouble with these, list specific complaints and we can discuss further. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't satisfy it, this doesn't either. The sources in your subpage (which are copyright violations and should be removed; anyone can Google the titles and find the same results), are about the author, with a brief mention about the book itself, reinforcing that the notability is the author's, not the book's. With that in mind, the article does not satisfy the criteria of WP:NBOOK #1. There are two brief sources which could be said show any notability for actually discussing the book, and that's not sufficient for the book to have a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Monster and Critics satisfy? Why doesn't the Liberpool satisfy? At least 6 of the sources above are explicit book reviews, the others do go into the book to some various degree that is more than trivial. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's nothing to extract from that; other than the very last sentence, it's a synopsis, not a review. A single sentence is a trivial thing, not something to base an article off of. The others are trhe exact same thing. - Sudo Ghost 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. A synopsis is significant coverage for notability purposes. 2. A synopsis is exactly what we need to source the plot section of the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not, a synopsis that is copied from the publisher is not sufficient. Otherwise most books would be notable. That is not the case; an article must be notable because it has recieved attention, not because a brief summary has been given verifying its existance without giving anything other than the publisher's viewpoint on the matter. An article has a synopsis section, that doesn't mean a synopsis grants an article notability. - Sudo Ghost 02:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these 8 sources is "copied from the publisher", what text specifically in the source(s) is copied from the publisher? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That you didn't check despite being told numerous times is concerning. Of the ones currently in the article, two of them currently are word-for-word copies of the publisher's synopsis. - Sudo Ghost 11:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the reviews look legit, published under a byline by major outlets. Also, one of the removed sources, although a blog, is probably notable due to the Norse Mythology expert who interviewed her. Meets the WP:BASIC. The Steve 08:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tricky thing about reviews is that there's nothing that actually states that a one sentence review from a reliable source isn't really usable. There have been countless debates but in the end nothing official has ever really been stated one way or another. Do I necessarily think that every trade review is that in-depth of a source? No, but this is one of those grey areas of RS so until we get an official consensus and have it added to WP:NBOOK, there's not much to be done about it. Until that time comes, the sources in the article show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 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 Dustin Kensrue. Sandstein 08:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Good Night Is Still Everywhere

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dustin Kensrue. There a two press releases being reproduced in several sites [1] [2]. Once we take those out all I could find were these two. The hungarian site seems reliable as far as I examined it. I cannot open the sputnikmusic review from work, so I can't tell if it's a user or a staff review. Overall, I think it's borderline notable, but in the end I don't feel it is really a significant album, and that reflects directly in the quality and availability of sources — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 30 October 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 1. Snotbot t • c » 21:20, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Social Studies Trust

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

Concerned about the notability of this organization. This article has also lacked sources since it's creation a few years back. May fail GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 October 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Dengero (talk) 14:30, 2 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional editors who have edited Wikipedia

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

Meta-list that in my opinion does not belong in the article namespace. Taking to AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It can be moved to "Wikipedia:Professional editors who have edited Wikipedia", to match "Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles", of whose entries its entries are a subset.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a great idea. Definitely would endorse that unless it's against some guideline or policy I'm not familiar with. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I now realize that "Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles" (version of 14:34, 31 October 2012) has this notice: "This listing may contain errors and should NOT be used as a source for any page in Wikipedia or publication outside of Wikipedia without doing some independent checking." (Incidentally, the notice contains a dangling modifier.) Because I am not prepared to do independent checking, and I doubt that other editors are, deletion seems to be appropriate. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my starting the new page.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete the list has quite a arbitrary inclusion criteria. It includes Lambert Meertens who edited the "Revised ALGOL 68 Report" an early spec for computers, but editing the report was just one of the many tasks he performed, really his occupation is its computer scientist. Others on the list are not really editor as their primary profession. I can't see it working either in article space or wikipedia space.--Salix (talk): 21:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – looks like pure original research and synthesis; flaky and non-useful at that, based on the few that I've looked at. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even think this has a home in project space. As an article in mainspace, there's simply no third-party sources discussing this very narrow intersection of topics, period, and we try to avoid unnecessarily self-referential naval gazing. In project space, I would see several problems here. Clearly, there's no good criteria being applied as to who constitutes a "professional editor", and several of these individuals, while having done some editing work at some point, are not primarily well-known (or even substantively known) in that capacity. Bottom line, this unquestionably doesn't need to be where it is now, and I don't think it's helpful to keep elsewhere, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Smells more like a blacklist than an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I started the page, I did not intend it to be a blacklist. I do not consider professional experience to be denigrating.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what does the article mean by "professional editors" Does it mean "editors who are professional editors of journals" - although this is not very well clarified on the article itself?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Professional editing in Wikipedia might soon be a good encyclopedic topic at the rate it is being discussed, but not this. As mentioned, it's even problematic in WP space. It would have to be defined as Professional editors who have said they are editing WP articles on behalf of clients, and this would seem a too much like advertising for them. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star system (filmmaking)

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

nonnotable original research Curb Chain (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The concept seems to have valid references. Although a lot of the article certainly is WP:SYNTH, I don't necessarily agree with it being blatant OR. If the author can clean it up and make it encyclopedic it might merit keeping. §FreeRangeFrog 21:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Hollywood star system is a well documented phenomenon. The article may need cleaning up, but the subject has been covered by multiple secondary sources: Shocking Representation published by Columbia University Press, Grand Design published by University of California Press, Negotiating Hollywood by University of Minnesota Press, and The 1920's published by Greenwood Publishing. More than adequately meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 00:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not perfect, but the star system certainly existed and has been written about, and there is good and referenced content here. Morwen - Talk 22:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic which has itself been the subject of commentary and analysis in multiple sources. That the article needs some work is a reason to keep it and allow improvements through regular editing, but not to delete it because it is not yet perfect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albina Library

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

One-sentence article; essentially a permastub. Unsourced. Merge proposal was stonewalled on the claim that a WLL powwow in late October would improve these articles. That date has come and gone, so it's time for this article to go as well, either to be a redirect to Multnomah County Library (where all the info is already in a handy-dandy table) or as outright deletion. It's also the fateful hour for the following other articles:

p b p 19:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note the Albina is no longer a one sentence "permastub", nor is the Belmont Library article. Other articles could easily be expanded with additional information as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Please refer to previous discussion here, which I have also included below:

Previous discussion at Multnomah County Library talk page

Hey, so I noticed a few weeks ago, several articles on MCL branches were created. Most of these have little to no content...they just say "this is a branch of the MCL" with a source to the branch's website on the MCL page (Since the MCL isn't a third-party source, as of yet they don't pass GNG). Since most of the "content" in those articles is already on this page, I move that all branches save Gresham and Woodstock be redirected here, and the information from those articles be displayed in a handy-dandy table that list the name, address, neighborhood, and construction date of all branches.

This merge discussion concerns the following articles:

p b p 15:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the proposed merges. Next month, MCL will host an edit-a-thon as part of Wiki Loves Libraries, one of the goals of which will be to de-stub branch articles. The Woodstock Library branch, currently awaiting Good article review, will be used as a model article for other branch libraries. Each of these articles has potential for expansion, eventually to Good article status. No need to merge given the individual articles can snowball. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I created the articles, but would oppose the merge regardless. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge I do not find Another Believer's argument convincing because I think that a promise to develop the articles in the future is irrelevant - all articles on Wikipedia have to meet minimum criteria at the time they are created. However, I do believe that the articles as they are right now are good enough to justify that they remain. Libraries in such a county as this are all notable and even creating these articles is a benefit to Wikipedia. These are all legitimate stubs. I would still support the creation of a table in this article giving details about each branch. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The MCL article should contain a list or table with an overview of the branches, but that does not mean articles should not exist for each branch. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To both Rasberry and A.B.: Please explain how the articles as currently constructed pass WP:GNG. They do not have any reliable sources; their information is just cut-and-pasted and there's more information in the table I pasted then in all the libraries' stub articles (save Central and Woodstock) put together. Frankly, there's a case to be made for their deletion at present, but I will give A.B. and the WLL people a reasonable amount of time (until 1 November; a couple weeks after his WLL pow-wow is schedule) before I execute that option. p b p 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not judged as to whether or not they pass the general notability guideline. The topic is judged. And unless you make a good faith effort to locate sources before nominating for deletion, then the nomination is improper (see WP:BEFORE). Given that every library article I've taken on has had amble sources available, my guess is that most of these topics would pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't, and even if they did, there's not enough content to justify a whole article for most of them. And I must remind you that BEFORE isn't mandatory p b p 14:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context." Have you attempted a good-faith search for additional sources? PBP, I very much appreciate your efforts and the work of others to keep our encyclopedia tidy, but in this case time is better spent improving these articles than proposing to delete them... Also, I thought this discussion was about merging... I will see if I can find some time to start collecting sources and pasting links on the article's talk pages. --Another Believer _(Talk)

From WP:GNG: "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context." Have you attempted a good-faith search for additional sources? I am certain there are enough to warrant keeping the article(s). Please see the Woodstock Library for a "Good" article of another branch within the Multnomah County Library system.

Albina:

I realize some of these sources might seem less-than-ideal for this discussion, but these are the types of sources used to construct the Woodstock Library article. Time would be better spent expanding these articles rather than fretting about unnecessary deletions. In full disclosure, I created these articles; yes, I could have done a better job expanding them, but that does not mean the articles should be deleted. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer was the articles' creator p b p 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged this already myself. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must remind you once more, AB, that BEFORE isn't mandatory. Also, I must remind you that you're lucky I didn't nominate these articles for deletion two months ago. You said you'd fix 'em. You didn't. All the information contained in these articles is in the main article already. So there's no reason we need a dozen or more permastubs floating around p b p 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, AB, you mention merger as an option, yet you opposed merger two months ago. You can't have it both ways...we have guidelines that say you don't leave one-sentence articles indefinetely p b p 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are at play here, not "luck". My original understanding of the edit-athon's purpose was to expand MCL-related stubs, not Multnomah County-related stubs. This misunderstanding on my part does not take away from the fact that these are legitimate stubs. They are not permastubs... each of them could snowball into a full article. I am sorry I did not have time the past 2 months to expand each of them to your standards. Please note on the Multnomah County Library talk page that other contributors weighed in on the merge/deletion proposal, advocating for the articles' inclusion in the encyclopedia. (I have notified those contributors of this discussion on their talk page, requesting them to comment if they felt so inclined. My messages were simply notifications, not attempts to canvas.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their arguments ignored WP:PERMASTUB and other relevant policies, so they really don't need to be noted, sorry p b p 20:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating for merging, nor do I consider these articles permastubs. The Woodstock Library article illustrates this very clearly. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's an irrelevant other-stuff-exists argument. Just because Woodstock is a GA doesn't mean that this get to be kept in perpetua on the off chance that they could make GA p b p 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be an other stuff exists argument, it is refuting the idea that these articles cannot be expanded. Ryan Vesey 20:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, time for me to step away. I have made my opinion known. These are clearly articles that could be (and should be) expanded. If you would take time to conduct research and collect sources, I believe you would come to the same conclusion. I will let other contributors weigh in. Again, I am not advocating for merging, but at the very least this should be a merge discussion and not a deletion discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you, Ryan, for articulating my point better than I can.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All of these and Gresham Library to a necessary Libraries in the Multnomah County Library system article. This allows expansion of the individual libraries until they can be split into their own articles per WP:Summary style. This also allows the table to remain in Multnomah County Library which is the best way of presenting the material in that article. Ryan Vesey 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not advocating for a merge, but it would be more appropriate to put information about branches on the already-existing MCL article than it would be to create another MCL-related article. The MCL article should contain information about the history of the entire branch system as well as a list of branches within the system, linking to articles about each of the branches. ~~There should probably also be a "Multnomah County Library" category, which would contain the MCL article as well as the 18 or so branch articles. This is how the library is categorized on Commons.~~ (See here.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons categorization is a poor argument for keeping something. There is no need for MCL to link to the 18 branch libraries' articles, because there is no need for those articles in the first place; Woodstock is the only one with more than a few sentences of content p b p 20:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using Commons to validate my argument. I am simply providing an example of structure (re: the MCL category on Wikipedia). --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Created Category:Multnomah County Library. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument here is that the Multnomah County Library article already has an effective list that contains the information of all of the libraries. As the articles on the libraries currently stand, most of them are sub-stubs that contain little to no information beyond what is in the list. If no changes were made, the best solution would probably be to redirect all of the sub-stubs to the library system. The problem then becomes, how does the process of expanding the articles about the individual libraries work. It would be overwhelming to create a section for each of the libraries in Multnomah County Library. Instead, under the section heading for branches in Multnomah County Library, there should be {{Main|Libraries in the Multnomah County Library system}} (or Branches of the Multnomah County Library system). In that new article, each library could be given a section and information about the libraries can be expanded there. Once the sections become large enough for their own article, summary style takes in. Until that point, there is no reason to keep these each as separate articles. Ryan Vesey 20:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So rather than keeping articles about notable subjects, we would merge them to the MCL article, then create a new MCL-related article with sections about individual branches within the system? Why not simplify the process and just keep the articles so they can be expanded? --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the articles are worthless right now. A centralized article would be much more valuable. And I don't support merging them to MCL first. Ryan Vesey 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Multnomah County Library and look at the table of branches, you get more information about Belmont Library than the article gives. Ryan Vesey 21:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, at this moment, but that could very easily be changed with just a few sentences for any given branch stub. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) If present trends continue, no indication that will ever happen, b) at that level, Ryan's "one-article-for-all-the-branches" makes sense. Once we get three paragraphs and an image for each one, then it'd make sense to have articles for each p b p 22:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a few minutes adding several sentences (from 10 sources) to the Belmont Library article. This could very easily be done to the other branches as well... --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - On procedural grounds until the nominator has shown they made a good-faith effort to search out RS for each nominated article. While BEFORE is not a mandatory thing, BEFORE is a description of a policy, see WP:DEL-REASON, specifically the seventh bullet point. As in, it describes how to meet the criteria. So yes, the searching is in fact mandatory, and has been for the roughly six years I've been around here (in one form or another). We do no exactly delete articles for a lack of notability, we delete articles on topics that are not notable. I detest stubs, but that is a personal opinion and not a policy/guideline based argument. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid procedural grounds Searching isn't manadatory either, and please address the issue of their notability or their deservingness of an entire article rather than rehashing your (inaccurate) opinion that searches are manadatory p b p 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, yes, searching is mandatory. See the policy WP:DEL-REASON. Again, that's a policy. As demonstrated in this very instance, there is a reason for this being mandatory, and that is to prevent wasted time such as this AfD discussion on topics that a quick search would identify that most, if not all, of these topics are notable. Further, as AfD itself does require the search (as covered in WP:BEFORE) it is in fact required for this process. Mush as at DYK one is required to complete a quid pro quo review if you have so many DYKs under your belt. Failure to do so at DYK will in fact cause the nomination to fail for that reason despite the lack of a policy, much as failure to seek out sources will cause AfD nominations to fail.

Otherwise, it has been clearly demonstrated that the topics are notable. Please consider withdrawal of the nominations as to those that clearly meet the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to, "would you withdraw the nominations?" is no. There's only two days left in the AfD; and a number of people did vote merge or delete (the former of which remains a valid vote even with GNG passed). Also, had they not been nominated for deletion, it's quite likely they wouldn't have been sourced for months or years. You're welcome. p b p 6:34 am, Today (UTC−8)

You must not hang out around AfD much. If you did, you would see the common refrain or "AfD is not for clean-up". As in we do not nominate articles to force clean-up. Again, if you reviewed BEFORE, you would see a common theme of basically fix the article if you can, only delete if an article on a topic cannot be fixed due to issues such as NOT or notability. Also if you hung out at them, you will routinely see good closing admins that review the debate, and will note it is not a vote (ergo there are no valid votes, period) but instead will review the debate and will discount early comments, where the comments no longer match the reality of the state of the articles (in general, review the admin guide). No one is thanking you, and no one will until you participate in this process in good faith and search for the sources and add them to the articles. Those who deserve thanks are those who decided to contribute to building Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion per Aboutmovies, who makes the most compelling argument above. Since it has been alleged that "WP:BEFORE is not mandatory," it seems relevant to also point out that WP:GNG is merely a guideline, not a policy. The policy that govern inclusion are WP:V and WP:NPOV. If I were to put on my guessing hat, I would guess that some of these library branches pass the notability threshold, while others don't. How do we get to a better approach than a guess? Through a good faith search for independent reliable sources.

Ideally, by the nominator, and before this whole collection is ~~even~~ brought up for AfD ~~the first time -- much less the second~~. -Pete (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only been brought to AfD once... Also, how is NPOV relevant? p b p 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was mistaken about the nomination's history -- relevant text struck in my comment above. NPOV is a policy that bears on some deletion discussions, but not this one; I was just making the general point that WP:GNG is not policy. -Pete (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A side point about this nomination: I don't think the neologism "permastub," in the first sentence of the nomination, accurately reflects the state of things. Another Believer, who wrote these stubs, brought the similar article Woodstock Library to good article status through peer review. He has a string of GA's under his belt. I don't know where the idea that these would be "perma"nently at stub status came from, but it seems like a strange assumption to me. -Pete (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was no activity in expanding the articles for two months, so what's to say there would be activity in expanding them for the next two months? Four months? Any length of time p b p 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PBP, your term was "perma"-stub, which implies that the articles will never amount to anything more than a stub. You did not rest your nomination on the idea that the articles would be stubs for two months, or ten years -- but permanently. That claim reflects a view of Another Believer's edit history that is not accurate. There are also many other editors who may improve the stubs. The "permastub" claim is highly dubious, and in my view insulting, considering the 40+ good articles promoted by the author in question. -Pete (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument could be made for any stub on Wikipedia, but that does not mean we should delete or merge those stubs as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why arguments concerning article size are generally considered to be avoided at AfD. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albina & Belmont, which are now long enough. Allow some time for others to develop, them merge the remaining one-liners. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I allowed two months... p b p 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Their presence allows contributors the opportunity to expand articles. Did I expand all of the stubs within the past two months? No. Could I expand all of them within the course of this AfD discussion? Not likely, especially given the time spent participating in discussions like this one. Could, and should, these articles be expanded? Yes. We all have limited time and resources--can we spend them improving the encyclopedia by adding information about notable subjects? This invitation might be seen as sarcastic, which is not my intent, and perhaps I will have no takers, but I invite contributors to expand these stubs if they are willing and able. I will continue working on them as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, each branch has a History page on the MCL website which provides enough detail to get started:

Capitol Hill: http://multcolib.org/agcy/cap-history.html
Fairview-Columbia: http://multcolib.org/agcy/frv-history.html
Gregory Heights: http://multcolib.org/agcy/grh-history.html
Rockwood: http://multcolib.org/agcy/roc-history.html
St. Johns: http://multcolib.org/agcy/stj-history.html
Troutdate: http://multcolib.org/agcy/tdl-history.html

... etc. These are primary sources, but they provide a great starting point and certainly illustrate the need for individual branch articles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other good sources include the Portland Business Journal and the Daily Journal of Commerce. Most archived items at both are free via their websites. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect those with no additional content to Multnomah County Library, and Keep the others. Doesn't this solve the issue for everybody? This leaves the article titles intact, if and when they're sufficiently expanded. I'm astonished at the mountain of bad-faith bullying on this page over this molehill of a problem. --Lockley (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Keep and improve:

– Per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. Both of these articles have been significantly expanded compared to their states at the time of nomination for deletion, and both appear to pass Wikipedia's General notability guideline per the sources in them.

– These both appear to pass WP:GNG per the sources in the respective articles.

Kenton Library

– Meets WP:GNG per [3], [4], [5].

– The above pass GNG per the sources now present in the articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above comment was added, I have worked on four others, and User:Finetooth has done an especially nice job on a fourth:

It may be desirable to add more to a couple of them (especially Holgate) but the sources certainly exist. Must we predicate a decision here on doing the actual expansion to all the articles, or has the point that these branches tend to have sufficient sourcing been made? -Pete (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much for the additional support, Pete and FT. I could not have expanded all of these articles this quickly on my own. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an interesting project. I'm pretty sure there will be Oregonian articles on all of these branches that can be accessed online by anyone with a Multnomah County Library card. (I'm a card-carrying member.) Oregonian archives are available from 1861 onwards. I can take photos as needed as I'm sure AB and others can too. I think we can expand all of these stubs to at least start class by the end of November. If it stops raining now and again, we can probably illustrate them all by then as well. Finetooth (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per WP:NRVE, topic notability on Wikipedia is not contingent upon whether or not sources are actually present in articles. The significant coverage in reliable sources simply needs to be existent. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least one article meets the GNG. I am not a fan of multi-nominations, and while I accept some laxity in nominating a *single* article for deletion, I really expect much better WP:BEFORE if you want to nominate sixteen at a time. I have been here for over ten years, and spent years improving some articles. Waiting a mere two months for an editor who a) has proven he can improve the articles to good status and b) has volunteered to improve these as well, does not impress upon me the immediate need to delete them. The Steve 08:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merge on the basis that the articles can be improved. Each library represents a huge tax investment and there must be existing documentation describing each one. I agree that some articles in the set are complete and that sources are not identified to complete them. Also, as a practical matter, this navigational box

is much less useful with only some libraries represented in it. Some of the libraries in this box are definitely notable and it would seem strange to include some but not all libraries in a box like this. This navigational box needs to exist, and although I do not like say that notability should be WP:INHERITED by individual members in a notable group, in this case since the stubs are legitimate and since several individuals in the group definitely should not be merged, I think all individuals should have distinct articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made too many leaps of faith here. Why does the navigational box need to exist? And using WP:INHERITED is frowned upon p b p 17:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A great deal of the information and images that have been added to this articles have been ripped from the MCL website and other non-reliable or non-independent sources p b p 18:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With more than 15 articles nominated at once, we are working to expand many articles within a short period of time. It makes sense to start with the most obvious source. Clearly you have no interest in collecting references or working to expand articles you have nominated for deletion, which (may or may not be required but) is unfortunate. Are there really no articles here you believe should be removed from the nomination? Some clearly pass the threshold for standalone articles. Also, which images were taken from the MCL website? I only see ones taken by local Wikipedians, including several within the past couple days. Much thanks to those contributors who have assisted with the expansion, categorization and improvement of these stubs. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the text goes, "abstracted" is more fair than "ripped". While the MCL is not independent of itself, its claims are generally verifiable via newspaper articles. The stubs are rapidly becoming start-class articles with lead illustrations by Wikipedia photographers. This seems to be a good thing rather than a bad thing. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Favor keeping all as separate articles: As of November 8, most have at least three paragraphs of text carefully abstracted from multiple sources. All but three of these articles have images taken by Wikipedia photographers and uploaded to the Commons with appropriate licenses. Good faith efforts to improve the articles are continuing; several editors are contributing to the improvements. Finetooth (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Finetooth; Rockwood Library is now of at least fair quality.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Public funds are used to build these libraries and they serve as a center of the community - yea, reliable sources are going to write about them in detail. The assumption that none of these library topics would meet WP:GNG is not reasonable. The deletion proposal to delete these articles and have their information listed in one article seems to be based on the state of the articles themselves, not whether each topic meets WP:GNG or fails WP:NOT. The state of any article can be improved by improving the article, not deleting it. If this AfD is closed as no consensus, feel free to individually list any of the libraries at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Crone

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

Non-notable minor academic, only one real claim to notability (an early work about Warhol, in fact this was the original topic of the entry). Refs do not establish notability, one of the main refs is a letter to the editor written by Crone. Hairhorn (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of new info. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citation weight is weak with this one. Definitely seems to fail WP:PROF. §FreeRangeFrog 21:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Keep per DGG, as usual superb research efforts. §FreeRangeFrog 20:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems a bit amiss. The subject has also edited a work on Rodin Rodin: Eros and creativity, which brings together leading scholars. He may not be a Warhol one-trick pony, after all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A University professor at Munich who is a "minor" academic isn't very likely. And in fact the very inadequate article does not come near showing the actual notability. A check of WorldCat [6] shows that he is a major figure in art history having written many dozen books, most from major university publishers and major specialized art publishers, many in hundreds of libraries. He write in German and English, but the books have been published also into French, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, Catalan, Swedish, French , and Japanese. He is indeed an expert on Warhol among other things, & the article was apparently written inadequately just to provide a basis for including his bio of that artist. I'm adding them to the article, and will add the reviews also, but it will take me all day. When I gave the nominator the link to the publication record, & asked if he wanted to withdraw the nomination, & I'd add the books he responded "Huh? Afd is usually thought of as an incentive to improvement." It may indeed do that as a last resort, but the purpose of improving articles is served better by WP:BEFORE. So here I go. I'll copy just the book titles of the academic works --the reviews and the exhibition catalogs and the translations are in the article:

Andy Warhol. in 438 libraries according to WorldCat

Louise Bourgeois: The Secret of the Cells. . In 373 libraries according to WorldCat

Kazimir Malevich: The Climax of Disclosure. University of Chicago Press, 1991. in 498 libraries according to WorldCat

Paul Klee: Legends of the Sign. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. in 498 libraries according to WorldCat

Rodin: Eros and creativity. Munich: Prestel, 2006. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG; I'm already satisfied that he does indeed meet WP:PROF, even if DGG is not yet done adding notable published works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with all of the above, as Universitätsprofessor in Munich he likely passes WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 3 November 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 08:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows SMS Sender

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

Non-notable software. article created by software author, fails google test, borderline spam article akaDruid (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to the company's article when I noticed it's up for deletion as well for lack of notability. Cursory gsearch shows this isn't even remotely notable. §FreeRangeFrog 21:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked for 3rd party refs, but nothing substantial found, only some product listing sites. Does not attain notability. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 9 November 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea 2–3 Manchester United 2012

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

No evidence that the details of this particular regular-season match are notable enough for a standalone article. The alleged "controversial decisions" and "racism allegation" might be worth mentioning at the Premier League season's article, and if anything significant comes of the probe into the latter then perhaps that might be encyclopedic, but nothing shows that there is anything more than routine coverage about the details of the match itself. Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not aware of any reason why a league match should be given an article, unless there was a disaster in the game. The article name itself is also a bit odd. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing about this game that will get any longer term coverage is the Mark Clattenburg racism controversy and that is far better covered in his article than a specific article about an otherwise unremarkable match. Keresaspa (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It will or might also significantly effect..." - but it hasn't yet. WP:CRYSTAL. Any match in October can affect the final positions. Up to reaching the position where certain teams cannot be caught (or cannot catch up, or lift off the bottom), any match affects the final table. The allegation against the referee is dealt with in his own article. Apart from the business of the referee, it's just a match. Some you win, some you lose. Not even a spectacular (0-14 for example) result. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an early season match with little known impact on the standings. The after-match items are just a distraction with nothing to do with what happened 90-94 minutes before. Nate • (chatter) 23:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No clear reason for deletion. Proposers for deletion to make a case why this is not notable because this is a CLEARLY notable event which occured between a top two clubs of recent years in EPL and currently the 1st and 2nd ranked in this season. This match included fully controversial 2 red cards and an offside goal. It will significantly effect the table and the winners of the premier league. It also includes a direct racism allegation against a referee. So clearly it is a notable event, has history in it, will be history itself both for Football and Race. It IS a spectacular match with 2 red cards and racism issue. Race cannot be ignored in any case as per any Wikipedia rules. Also to remind you all, MU had not won a single match at Stamford Bridge for the past 10 years.49.244.115.217 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"CLEARLY notable", eh? I see no evidence that this match will affect the standings other than the obvious "+1 win for team X, +1 loss for team Y" that is the effect of every match. You might think it was "spectacular" but you are not a reliable source, and stating that it "will be history" is pure speculation. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not notable eh? I see clear evidence that it will affect the standing. Dont try to break WP:NPOV. Keep your points of view to yourself. Wiki doesnt work that way. There are 100s of sources that are saying the match was spectacular.49.244.115.217 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? Can you indicate which WP guideline says that a match gets a stand-alone article on the basis of being "spectacular"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE. Run of the mill football match. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no more notable than any other Premier League match, being "spectacular" (in addition to being purely a matter of opinion) is not a reason for a match having an article. Sendings off and "offside goals" happen all the time. Racism allegation can (and probably already is, I haven't checked) be covered at Mark Clattenburg, where it belongs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly a remarkable game, even speaking as a United fan. The only thing slightly notable in the article is the possible problems regarding Mark Clattenburg, but that would be best covered in his own article, or if it become a bigger thing in the future it may deserve a sentance or two in Racism in association football. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote can not be considered henceforth because your break WP:NPOV. You speak as a united fan.49.244.115.217 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhubarb. NPOV is something totally different - you mean WP:COI. COI hardly applies when someone is calling for the deletion of an article about an away match their team WON.... Peridon (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, let it Snow - it might justify a line or two in 2012–13 Premier League if it turns out to have a particular impact on the outcome of the season (though such an "impact" would need to be verified by reliable sources). As a standalone article it is quite obviously not notable. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT all I can find is routine reporting of a sports result. Mt king ^(edits) 10:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No point in having this article. – Michael (talk) 18:55, 6 November 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 as unambiguously promotional. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Farel

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

Subject of the articles fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:RS. There's no indication that subject is notable. Holyfield1998 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 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. The nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ha dg er 22:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Dark Canyon

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

~~Unreferenced article about a film. No evidence of awards. No evidence of professional reviews in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. I had little difficulty finding reviews: Film Threat, Village Voice. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per [7] and [8]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, specially in noting that the article is no longer "unreferenced" and that sources were easy to find with various efforts in looking. As the nominator's concerns are proving addressable, I would ask that he might consider a withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AfD as per the great work from User:MichaelQSchmidt and User:Tokyogirl79. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:06, 3 November 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 08:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GemSelect

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Claims to be "one of the largest suppliers of precious gems" but I cannot find a reliable source to substantiate this. Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not that it has a lot of weight necessarily, but most of the ghits I see are complaints about rip-offs. In any case it seems to fail WP:COMPANY and is obviously self-promotional. §FreeRangeFrog 21:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User generated review sites should not have any weight whatsoever and are not relevant to a subjects notability. Article has been edited to include source for claim to be largest as noted by editor Kinu. Alexa ref added in; Wikipedia article uses Alexa as a verifiable reference, not for notability but to emphasis popularity. Structuring has been made to focus on the company's non-commercial organization contributions of educational content to establish non-promo point of view. Non-commercial focus may need reconsidering per Wiki's guidlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyml (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per the search engine test, Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. I see a bunch of links to random web pages that merely say "visit GemSelect", press releases (i.e., this addition is completely useless), etc. Are there any actual reliable sources that discuss this company in depth? --Kinu ^t/_c 05:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed point re press release source-- has been removed. “Alexa rankings do not ‘reflect’...notability”, but it is still “it is helpful to estimate the relative popularity of a website” and “Alexa itself says that ranks worse than 100,000 are not reliable” per Search Engine Test. My take from this is that although Alexa doesn’t determine notability, it can still aid with reinforce it (assuming we can verify notability with other references). Would this be correct? There are many published discussions on specialized websites like Pricescope; would these gem/jewelry related websites be be considered reliable? In the meantime, I'm still looking into other publications for sources.
    - Re pricecope (and gemologyonline) --Independent sources; it is 3rd party and the authors are considered experts in their fields. Do they fall into this loop?Dyml
      - I see you've added this and this. Have you actually read WP:RS? --Kinu ^t/_c 16:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In WP:RS "and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control". The members of Pricescope are considered experts in their fields. Does this qualify it to be a reliable 3rd party source?Dyml (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dyml (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 2 November 2012

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources. I've reviewed the sourcing in the article and none of the sources are usable for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will of course respect any decision made on this matter Keep or Delete, but because of the site's status within the mineral,geology, gemstone and jewelry communities I thought there should be an article covering this website. Of the 600+ education articles in this website's database, hundreds of websites and articles continuously reference this website for their facts (including Wikipedia). It's value in the geological and mineralogy community is held high. For such a small niche and specific community, to be in the top 100,000 of all websites, that seems to be noteworthy on its own. no vote Dyml (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no, the gem sales site has no "status" within mineral or geology communities and the above user has been adding "reference" links to the site to several mineral articles. Should be blacklisted. Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is fine if agreed upon, which seems to be the case, but blacklist seems harsh. I did add references to additional articles, but only to articles I improved upon. I thought this was acceptable and done with good intentions by contributing to the wiki community. One of the articles had 0 references and asked for contribution. If a reference was added, it was only done because an improvement was made. Because Vsmith doesn't like the changes, said references have been removed and no improvements have been made to the articles.Dyml (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems Vsmith took the liberty of removing a reference already, but was happy to leave the factual article contribution I updated on Aventurine-- "The name Aventurine is used for both aventurine feldspar and aventurine quartz. The aventurine feldspar is now commonly traded under the name sunstone, rendering the name aventurine to be used mainly as reference to the quartz variety." Factual addition has been removed from the article - along with the reference that the User removed. (Same apples for Kyanite factual contribution) Dyml (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 8 November 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 as unambiguously promotional. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Campbell (Author)

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

Non-notable author of a single book that has not yet been released (according the author's own spec sheet). Article likely violates WP:BLP by relying extensively on primary sources and by stating facts not verified by said sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see what I can do. Wow... that's a lot of puffery going on there to clean out. It almost, almost could be speedied for being so blatantly promotional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty much a prime example of what is most likely someone coming onto Wikipedia to create a promotional page for themselves. Given the lack of any hits coming up to give her notability and that the page here resorts to using Amazon and genealogy websites to source parts of the article (and that there's far more here than is actually stated in the sources), this is pretty obviously something that should be speedied for being blatant promotion. If by some strange chance it doesn't get speedied, my vote is for delete. There's no notability here and I highly recommend that the original editor read through WP:COI before attempting to re-add this page to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were bits that taken directly from the AuthorBiography.pdf that I've removed as copyvio. It seems likely other bits of the article are also copyvio, too. Unless I've misunderstood something, large parts of the bio are cited to a talk at a church, which is odd for an WP:AUTO. Delete as per Tokyogirl79's reasoning. Morwen - Talk 18:49, 1 November 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien leduc

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

Self-published author with no indications of notability. Profile in the alumni magazine of his alma mater doesn't really count as "independent coverage". Reviews at amazon.com or smashwords don't count as "reliable". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find no reliable sources discussing this author or his work. Indeed, the two-sentence plot summary in the alumni magazine is not useful at all. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable per WP:AUTHOR, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Darth Sitges (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quoting Amazon customer reviews is a sign of no other reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Which is me. The article's now in a fit state to keep. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle law in California

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

My concerns over this article are illustrated by a couple of quotes from its current talk page and its first AfD nomination.

[T]his article... has a lot of serious problems with WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SYN and/or WP:OR. While there are a few secondary sources that seem legitimate at first glance, the vast majority of this article simply consists of editors' interpretations of citations of the California Vehicle Code, which is a primary source, not a secondary source. ... Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of synthesis of primary sources, even if the analysis seems obvious.
— User:Agnosticaphid 06:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

[This article's deletion is justified] primarily due to WP:NOLEGAL. The tone of the current article reads like California bicyclist-friendly legal advice (...explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California...) verging on WP:NOTADVOCATE, not a encyclopedic neutral treatment of the subject written for a universal audience. Contrast this article with the treatment (though by no means perfect) given at Bicycle law. See WP:NOTAFORUM on plea point #5. I would tend to think Wikibooks would be a better place for this.
— User:Zedla 03:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has not noticeably improved since the above was written three years ago, and is very unlikely to ever do so. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is almost entirely the work of a single author, Born2cycle. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Not only were my admittedly non-exhaustive comments on the talk page not addressed, but additional primary sources/original research have been added since I added the comment and related tags. Accordingly, I doubt that the article will substantially improve, and I also think it's unlikely that the vast majority of the article will be removed. For those reasons, it seems appropriate to delete the article. AgnosticAphid talk 18:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that admin who closed the prior nomination forty months ago wrote, "Recommend something be done with this article swiftly. I can't enforce the requested time restriction on a renomination, but the article in its present form/location appears to have legitimate concerns that are unlikely to fade away. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)" AgnosticAphid talk 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, most if not all interpretations of the vehicle code in this article are supported by secondary sources, including: Wachtel, Forester, Bluejay, Mionske, Pein, and Bernardi. I also suggest this is a special case, and perhaps IAR needs to be invoked. Let's at least consider whether Wikipedia is improved by the deletion of this article. To that end, according to traffic statistics, this article routinely gets 1500-2000 hits per month. Considering it's such a narrow topic (which also explains the scarcity of secondary sources on the topic), that's pretty impressive, and demonstrates the utility and value of the information in the article to our readers. It should also be noted that the published vehicle code is not a typical problematic primary source. It is written specifically for the public at large and so that anyone can understand it. I fail to see how Wikipedia is improved by removing this article, based solely on rules designed to remove material that creates problems which are not created by this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedia is not furthered by the inclusion of articles of dubious accuracy. And let's not beat around the bush, that's exactly what this article is and that's why we have rules prohibiting original research and reliance on primary sources. I don't think that the California Vehicle Code was "written specifically for the public at large so that anyone can understand it." You can read about the history of the California Codes in the corresponding article, which makes no mention of public usability. In fact, that article states that relying solely on them might not be advisable: "The Codes form an important part of California law. However, they must be read in combination with the federal and state constitutions, federal and state case law, and the California Code of Regulations, in order to understand how they are actually interpreted and enforced in court." The California Codes are not a special sort of primary source that warrant ignoring all rules about the limits on the scope of editors' original analysis. For example, as I mentioned in my comment on the talk page of the article, to which you declined to respond or address here, "So too, even the statement that bicyclists, like everyone else, have to move over if there's 5 people behind them needs a source. What if, for instance, there was some other provision of the CVC that specifically provided that bicyclists were exempt from CVC 21656 [the law that says to move over]? Primary sourcing wouldn't reveal that; hopefully a reliable secondary source would." I'd also like to point out that many of the statements the article really are legal advice, which is to be charitable a bit in tension with WP:IANAL. (In other words, the usefulness of legal pointers about California biking law seems questionable given that Wikipedia expressly tells all of its readers that it doesn't give legal advice or offer legal opinions and won't represent that any legal articles are accurate.)

I also do not think that the fact that up to 70 people visit this page daily really means that it's an appropriate wikipedia article. There are lots of other affiliated projects that I'm sure would love to have a detailed exposition of biking law in California, even if it's not based exclusively on reliable secondary sources like Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. See also WP:USEFUL (just because it's useful doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia), WP:NOHARM ("Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept"), and WP:POPULARPAGE ("just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope.").

Finally, while it is true that a few of the subsections of the article have secondary sources (the reliability of which I have not attempted to determine and of which other editors seem dubious), overall the vast majority of the article does not. And the article is not moving in the correct direction. The article hasn't been substantively revised in quite some time, and the most recent references that were added were in connection with synthesis of primary sources. Nor does it appear that there is a commitment from the usual editors of this article to move it in the right direction or even to acknowledge that the problems discussed here are valid.

Because this article has major reference problems, because there is a minimal amount of acceptable material, and because there seems to be no indication that either of these things is about to change despite the passing of a substantial amount of time since they were first mentioned, I think the article should be removed. AgnosticAphid talk 20:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the only specific example provided... you speculate that it's possible some other provision of the vehicle code might exempt bicyclists from having to comply with 21656. Do you really think it works like that? That they put in a section a something that says drivers must do X, and then in a section b say that section a does not apply to certain types of drivers? Without at least referencing that section b in section a? If so, that would require everyone to have knowledge of all sections of the vehicle code to understand any section of it, which would make it practically useless.

And yes, usefulness alone, or popularity alone, or no harm alone, are not reasons in and of themselves good enough reasons to keep an article. But taken all together I suggest they make a compelling case for keeping. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of specific examples of missing sources in my comment on the talk page. But anyway, you absolutely do need to have an exhaustive knowledge of the vehicle code to be able to definitively interpret any section of it. There are lots of exemptions in the Vehicle Code (and all the other California Codes) that are not mentioned in the sections to which the exemptions apply. If you're really interested, you could reference the first example I could immediately find, which is that [9] contains an exemption to [10] that is not mentioned in the latter statute. I'm sure there are other examples, but this one should suffice to rebut your categorical statement. And even leaving that particular possibility to one side, the sections are not always interpreted by courts to mean what their text suggests, which is why the California Codes article notes that you also need to be familiar with case law and applicable regulations to confidently interpret them. AgnosticAphid talk 22:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's true in many cases, including 460/461. Good point. But is there anything in the article which you can identify as being inaccurate because it is contradicted by actual/known exemptions rather than ones you speculate about? When every relevant source agrees on an interpretation, and no relevant source disagrees, isn't it acceptable to include that interpretation?

There is no source that questions that 21656 interpretation, and no mention of any exemption for bicyclists mentioned in any source anywhere, so far as I know. Do you know otherwise? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that you're missing the point. While I am a California attorney (which isn't relevant), I'm not an expert on biking law or the vehicle code. So no, I don't know otherwise. I doubt anybody else does, either. But the whole point of using secondary sources is that if we pick reliable ones we won't have to sit around speculating about whether our interpretations are correct! The fact that neither you nor I nor the other ten editors who read this know for a fact that you're wrong doesn't mean it's okay to include an unreferenced statement until someone better informed comes along. In any event, there are lots of sections of this article that simply don't have any secondary sources at all, including the discussion of CVC 21656. So it's not really fair to suggest that the absence of contrary sources supports your position. AgnosticAphid talk 22:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note the words of Jimbo, with which I think you may be familiar: I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. AgnosticAphid talk 23:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I suggest you find someone who is an expert on bicycle law and ask them if there is anything inaccurate in this article. Let us know. Until then, I get your point, I disagree, and I see nothing productive that can come from further discussion, since by your own admission you're not an expert on the topic of this article.

Jimbo's comment, by the way, sounds like something that was said in the context of BLPs.

Also, I can't help but wonder if as a California lawyer your exuberance in getting this article deleted is not at least partially motivated by wanting to reduce the amount of helpful information there is available here to potential lawyer clients. I mean, the more we can learn without a lawyer, the better we can defend ourselves. I know people who have relied on information and references in this article to win in court, without a lawyer. Not questioning your good faith. Just wondering if there might be a subconscious factor at play here. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how claiming that I am "exuberan[t]" about deleting this article -- which isn't accurate; I wasn't the nominator, and my talk page comment was months ago -- because I want to "reduce the amount of helpful information there is available here to potential lawyer clients" is anything other than a personal attack. You're suggesting that I have a personal interest in deleting this article because I want Californians to be uninformed about bicycle law so that they will come to me rather than wikipedia. That's really not appropriate (or accurate, given my wholly unrelated field of practice, but whatever). The statement from Jimbo I referenced is not about BLP, it's about verifiability "more generally." In fact, you referenced the BLP part of it in your RFC about "lane splitting," a decidedly non-BLP issue, and it seems like everyone agreed with you.

The important point here is that there are many, many, sourcing problems with this article, and nobody seems committed to recognizing, much less fixing, them. AgnosticAphid talk 00:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I recognize the sourcing is not ideal, but I've seen many articles with sources that were much worse, so I didn't think it was a priority to fix them. Not to mention that it's difficult.

By the way, CVC 21202, which is specific to bicyclists, explicitly states, in (a) (3), that bicyclists are subject to the provisions of 21656. How the encyclopedia, much less the world, is better off by deleting this information still escapes me. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially a how-to and OR legal guide; I see several blogs and other self-published materials in the secondary sources, hardly enough to back up some of the broad legal claims made in the text. The amount of traffic on the page is hardly surprising given the topic, but that means little. Hairhorn (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing a few examples of the "broad legal claims made in the text" that you think are not sufficiently backed up? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Racing and drafting bicycles is legal", for starters.... although I'm not sure a debate on particular examples is the way to save the page. Hairhorn (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation of the law is properly referenced to two sources [11] [12]. Did you read that? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was only a single working reference when I made that comment; a book by an engineer that is given as the reference for the the claim "it is perfectly legal for bicyclists to draft and race on open public roads in California". What things are "perfectly legal" is a matter decided by courts. Hairhorn (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So until a matter is decided by the courts, we have no idea if it's legal or not? What utter nonsense. Much of the vehicle code has never been challenged in court, and yet we (including driver's manual writers) have to understand it and decide for ourselves what is "perfectly legal". Anyway, I fixed the other link. If you disagree with the sources, take it up with them, but that's no argument to remove sourced and verifiable material, much less an entire article.

Per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." The indisputable fact is that the sections regulating racing and drafting refer specifically to motor vehicles, and bicycles are not motor vehicles. The cited sources put 2 and 2 together for us, but these "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Are you questioning whether racing or drafting of bicyclists is legal in CA after reading these primary and secondary sources, or without reading them? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wiki isn't really the place for a legal guide, this is exactly the issue raised in the first AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a legal guide, nor a how-to manual; it's an encyclopedic article about a legitimate legal topic about parts of a primary legal source based on secondary sources books and articles as well as the primary source. Similar articles about less obscure topics include: Preamble to the United States Constitution, Article One of the United States Constitution, etc., etc. Please note especially that second one, which quotes specific sections of Article One, and then interprets them, with references, just like this article does. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by the style/format used in Article One of the United States Constitution, I changed all calls to the Quotation template in this article to be calls to the quote template instead. [13] I realize it's only a style issue, but maybe those Quotation colored boxes were too much, and causing people to misinterpret the type of article this was. What do you you think of it now? Bicycle law in California. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination should be a wake-up call to Wikipedians that shows the potential for abuse of the PRIMARY rule, but the Guantanamo prisoner articles were not. I'll just go on crying "Wolf!" while others prefer to think of the wolf as just misunderstood. Or useful. Anarchangel (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The what were what? Are you here to debate the questionable utility of this article, or to make a point about something completely irrelevant? — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. I don't see why prohibiting people from making off-the-cuff legal analysis with no sources (primary sources may as well not be a source for verifiability purposes) is a bad decision. AgnosticAphid talk 16:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this AfD is misuse of PRIMARY. WP:PRIMARY states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." If you think there are any uses of primary sources, including "legal analysis", in this article that do not meet this requirement, please point them out so that they may be fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a non-exhaustive list of claims made in the first half of the article that are either unsourced or rely on primary sources. Compiling this was a bit exhausting and seems somewhat futile so I couldn't get to the second half, but maybe someone else can. The problems are pretty clear, at any rate, so it shouldn't be difficult for enterprising editors to figure out.

"Bicycle-relevant divisions" has no source for the statement that the referenced parts of the vehicle code are the only ones dealing with bicycling.
The discussion of CVC 21650 is based on primary sources. The "because of CVC 21200 ..." claim is problematic. You're synthesizing these two primary sources to reach a conclusion that isn't stated in either of them. See WP:SYN.
The CVC 21703/23109 discussion is likewise a synthesis. You're listing all the various implications of Wachtel's claim about "motor vehicle" provisions not applying to cyclists, but I don't see where Wachtel anywhere makes any of these statements himself.
The CVC 530 discussion is based exclusively on primary sources. It also synthesizes a number of primary sources to make claims not stated in any of them. Who says "shoulders are not 'improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel'; vehicular travel on shoulders is prohibited"? This claim has no source. There are freeway shoulders by my house in Oakland where cars are permitted to drive during rush hour. There is a portion of Interstate 580 where the bike path is in fact on the shoulder of the freeway. Who says 21202's "roadway" excludes the "shoulder"? The point is not to discuss the merits of your analysis, the point is that relying on primary sources is problematic because what may seem to be obvious conclusions are usually not quite so obvious as they appear, which is why we verify our claims by relying on reliable secondary sources. This is especially the case when using statues as secondary sources, because like I pointed out earlier they have exceptions and wonky definitions that you wouldn't always know about from relying on the primary source of the lone statute itself.
For CVC 21202(a), there are many problems. While there is the one secondary source, it really doesn't support many of the statements made in the article. First of all, who says that it is "rare" for an exception not to apply? Second, who says that the AASHTO's 14-foot recommendation is equivalent to the definition of "substandard width lane" set forth in section 21202, subdivision (a)(3)? You conflate the two with no supporting source. Why are Texas' rules about lane width at all relevant? Nor is there any source for your discussion of right turns and driveways in residential areas. It's just more of you personally think this law would require in residential areas. Why are Born2Cycle's opinions about the requirements of the California Vehicle Code the appropriate basis for an encyclopedia article? There's simply no verifiable evidence that the listed exceptions are interpreted in the manner in which you assert.

In sum, I'd say that this article is drowning in sourcing problems. Your off-the-cuff analysis of a primary source does not belong in Wikipedia. Yet the only response I've seen here is a claim that for some reason the California Vehicle Code is some kind of "super source" that's so easy to interpret and so obvious in its implications that it somehow warrants ignoring all of our rules about sourcing. But I think that if there is one place that we should definitely enforce our rules about sourcing, it's when we're dealing with legal texts. After all, we have hundreds -- thousands -- of judges who spend a significant part of their jobs just sitting around thinking about how to interpret statutes just like these. AgnosticAphid talk 19:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pre-emptively apologize for repeatedly saying "you" rather than "the article." AgnosticAphid talk 20:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've addressed most of these concerns[14]. I think part of the problem is that citations in the article have been removed instead of being marked as dead when the original location referenced storing the Wachtel paper from the 1995 UCD Environment Law Society symposium disappeared. Anyway, I'm restoring and fixing it as much as I can. Of your list, the only area I have left is 21202. But I assure you these are not my personal opinions. They are supported by multiple secondary sources. It's a matter of finding them. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. You didn't really fix all of the things I mentioned. The article still has the first two problems I noted. I'll admit, the third thing looks alright at first glance, I think. The CVC 530 thing is still a synthesis. I reviewed Mr Wechtel's article and I don't think he links his statement about riding on the shoulder to CVC 530 the way the article does. It's more of a synthesis of his statements and the text of the code. You admitted 21202 is a problem. More importantly, what about the rest of the article? It's much worse than the things I explicitly mentioned above.

It's good that we're sort of making incremental progress with certain sentences here and there, but really the entire topic is inherently problematic. It really just is a legal guide and how-to manual. The article is not some kind of exposition of the history of biking laws in California, or the social consequences of biking laws, or really anything else other than a discussion of the text of the actual biking laws themselves. You admitted as much above, when you argued to keep it because it's useful, popular, and not harmful (all "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" as I pointed out) and revealingly stated, "I know people who have relied on information and references in this article to win in court, without a lawyer." Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a legal or any other kind of guide.

Perhaps in some kind of exceptional instance, we could have an article that breaks all the rules -- a how-to guide based on primary sources. This is not that kind of exceptional instance. This is a complex topic that at best treads perilously close to constituting legal advice. It's full of primary sources about this questionable topic. It seemed like when this was first discussed forty some months ago that the article was supposedly moving in another direction ("swiftly") to stay. It really hasn't moved much of anywhere at all. After all this time, I just can't see the commitment to the wholesale revisions that would be necessary to keep this article. I would say that at best there have been gracious cosmetic revisions. AgnosticAphid talk 06:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I'd like to point out that nobody will even admit that the article is misusing primary sources. How is this AfD a misuse of WP:PRIMARY? This non-recognition seems like a poor starting point for a kept article. But maybe I'm really just off my rocker and don't understand what a primary source is. AgnosticAphid talk 06:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the CVC is a primary source for what the CVC says. It's a misuse of PRIMARY to base an argument for deletion on the grounds that this article uses that primary source. Using it is not a problem, as long as we also have secondary sources which refer to it, like the Wachtel, Forester, and Mionske sources do. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs significant cleanup, but it's most certainly an educational and encyclopedic topic of value to readers and editors alike. — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well folks, I've completely (and I mean completely) overhauled the article. The big problem was that it wasn't structured like an encyclopedia article at all. After fixing that, dumping all the glaring synthesis and great big chunks of redundant and/or duplicated text, it actually looks worth keeping. I no longer have any objection to it existing, providing that no more "X and Y, therefore Z"-type stuff is added to it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite an impressive and laudable improvement. The article's claims are much more appropriate to the sources and the article is more encyclopedic. I'm not totally convinced of the appropriateness of the topic itself -- but I don't really even know what kind of objection that is exactly (notabililty? seems wrong somehow) and I can't say that the article turns me off the way it used to. Given your proviso, and in light of my general inexperience with deletion discussions, I can't say I'm still willing to support deletion. AgnosticAphid talk 21:05, 6 November 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 08:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artista Rosario

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

Promotional piece for a non-notable performer, at least non-notable by our standards. No reliable sources are provided, and whatever Google News turns up are false hits (due to the grammar of the person's artist name). Drmies (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tagged this for speedy on 10/23 and it was deleted then. Re-creation by the same author on 10/26; it's better now. I usually do a WP:BEFORE prior to tagging and I didn't see anything significant during my search, but like nominator reports, a web search is hindered by the false hits created by the high frequency unrelated hits with the same name appear. I still don't see anything approaching WP:IRS here. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 2 November 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 08:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laravel

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

I placed a prod tag on this article for total lack of independent sources. It was removed with reference to two books: 'Code Happy', which is described on it's Amazon page like so: 'This is a self published title written by one of the Laravel Core Team developers.' The second was 'Laravel Starter' by Shawn McCool, who is described as a member of the Laravel team on the publisher's web site. I've looked, and aside from a few blogs I cannot find any sources for this article that are unconnected with the development team. I think this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. Update: It looks like a canvassing post about this AFD has already gone up on their webforum. MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not demonstrate notability.--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 November 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. Also raises WP:BLP issues. Sandstein 08:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stevens (weatherman)

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

This article does not meet notability, verifiability, or reference guidelines. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS Byates5637 (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The entry has been reverted to an earlier revision that is of higher quality and contains a reference, but I still do not think that this meets the notability guidelines.Byates5637 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Current version of the entry is a mess, it presents crackpot theories as established "global phenomena". Possibly notable in pseudoscience circles, although it's hard to say. Hairhorn (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inadequately sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 2 November 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 08:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ph7 engine

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

I placed a prod tag on this article with a request for independent sourcing, and it was removed with an addition to a project profile on Freecode.com, a site which appears to be an indiscriminate collection of user submitted open source projects. I've looked and cannot find any sources for this, so I believe this project fails the general notability guideline and the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The project is Open Source since October 2012, so it's a relatively new project and I'm one if the commiter to it. As I said, the source code is available free to download, simply analyze it and you will see that PH7 really is an Embeddable PHP Engine, you may also check the PH7 Licensing page (http://ph7.symisc.net/licensing.html) or the company website (http://symisc.net). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremejames183 (talk • contribs)

I have no doubt that it exists and really is an embeddable php engine, I just doubt that it meets Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this is self-advertising, you are wrong. I'm a simple commiter to the project, not a direct affiliate with it. If such behavior was wanted, I would have copy and paste all the features page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremejames183 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I'm not even seeing coverage in unreliable sources. That isn't surprising for a project that only got started last month. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 5 November 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinect Rush 3: A Nicktoons Adventure

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

I believe this is a fictitious game. Cannot find it reported on any reliable news sites or even on the developer's website. X201 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Seems to be a play on the words Kinect Rush: A Disney-Pixar Adventure. That is, they colloborate with Disney-Pixar as Kinect Rush 1, Cartoon Network as Kinect Rush 2, and Nicktoons as Kinect Rush 3: A Nicktoons Adventure. The Pixar collaboration was noted in a June 4, 2012 news article,[15] soit seems unlikely that Kinect Rush would jump to a competitor so quickly. There's no sources for Rush 2 or 3 and Kinect Rush is not referred to as Kinect Rush 1. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as per Uzma Gama1. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear as WP:CRYSTAL unless someone can magically make WP:VG/RS appear. I can't find anything on it. czar · · 19:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:SNOW if I ever saw one. §FreeRangeFrog 21:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making an assumption just based on what network the article creator loves more. For all we know, Kinect Rush 2 or 3 could throw us a curve and be A C-SPAN Adventure, A Netflix Adventure or A The Hub Adventure. No sources, and too far out to predict in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculation. No sources confirming that this is the title of the third game.--xanchester (t) 00:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we don't even have sources for the claimed second game in the series making this even less likely.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 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 Polyadenylation. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TTATT

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

I don't think this article passes WP:NEO, and I couldn't find any sources about the phrase online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Polyadenylation. AAUAAA redirects to polyadenylation and "The end of transcription is heralded when RNA polymerase II reaches a "termination sequence" (TTATT on the DNA template and AAUAAA on the primary transcript)."[16] TTATT also is a fixed points in the sky that the FAA has pilots use when they fly the approach to runway 16 in Portsmouth, N.H.[17] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polyadenylation. The current content cannot be adequately sourced for inclusion, and I think we can safely ignore the Portsmouth navigation fix as trivial (there are a lot of those, and they're well beyond the scope of this encyclopedia). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility number

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

The term "nobility number" as used in this article does not appear to be notable. The phrase "mobility Reynolds number" appears in exactly one scientific publication (the one listed as a source). This publication appeared in June this year and has not (yet) received any citations.

The term "mobility number" appears in other places in the literature, where it can mean a number of things, which as far as I can tell are at best only loosely related to what is described in this article.T R 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC) T R 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 October 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, Wifione ^Message 11:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who created this has been adding citations to papers written by this "Shiva P. Pudasaini", to lots of pre-existing articles, and failing to engage meaningfully when challenged. I don't profess to understand mechanics at this level, but it looks like it's a delete, unless someone else speaks up in its defence. Morwen - Talk 12:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No currency in the field. This exists solely in the work of Shiva Pudasaini, first appearing in a 2012 Journal of Geophysical Research paper as a novel coinage. Essentially, he takes a slightly different approach to modeling granular flow in large mass wasting events, and this new constant appears. The Iverson and Denlinger (2001) reference given in the article doesn't talk about this topic at all; indeed, Pudasaini notes that in the paper. No one else seems to have adopted the term, and Pudasaini's paper is not widely cited, so this falls quite a bit short of having significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of mobility, the ability to flow in the presence of hindrances such as impurities and collisions, is a common one in physics, for instance, Electron mobility in semiconductors. But I agree, looking at the literature, this is the definition of a single author, Shiva P. Pudasaini. Furthermore, there are a number of different definitions of mobility in geophysics, and the definition of mobility number given in the article is certainly not the most common.Mark viking (talk) 21:45, 3 November 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 Miss A. Sandstein 08:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Women Part III

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

This article is unsourced and empty bar an infobox. I believe that it fails notability and doesn't merit an article on its own. Should possibly be merged into Miss A Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the artists main article and possibly make a one sentence mention in Destiny's Child Independent Woman Part I.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:43, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space Empire II

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

Fails WP:N. Only references are self-published. Contested PROD. czar · · 05:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Space Empire Elite and redirect. -- 173.247.200.74 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:59, 25 October 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, Wifione ^Message 11:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources found.--Salix (talk): 22:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. There are no independent sources cited; I couldn't find any when I looked last month nor again today. The article makes no credible claim of notability. Cnilep (talk) 07:15, 5 November 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. After decrapification and rewrite. Sandstein 08:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible tanks

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

Incomprehensible text, seems to be corporate or advertising mrw (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was a coherent (but unreferenced) stub article as of February 2012. An anon IP editor rewrote it in May 2012. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes, before May 2012 this was a perfectly sensible stub. Suggest we start from there and seek sources. SAE International: Aircraft Flexible Tanks General Design and Installation Recommendations 1996. [www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr527.pdf Health and Safety Executive: Fluid structure interaction effects on and dynamic response of pressure vessels and tanks subjected to dynamic loading, 2007] (rigid and flexible tanks). Australian Government National Water Commission: Rainwater Tank Design and Installation Handbook, 2008. A primary source is Fem Seismic Analysis Of Steel Tanks For Oil Storage In Industrial Facilities (14th WCEE, 2008). There's a little history in Grace's Guide: Marston Excelsior re fuel tanks for WWII aircraft. I'm sure water engineers could readily find more and better sources than these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly cleaned up the article (more or less a revert to before May 2012) with the more sensible OR snippets from May 2012, added these sources and started with an inline ref. Help please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flexible thermoplastic or elastomer water tanks and rubber gas tanks have been in use since the 1950s. Article improved per CC's request. The Steve 21:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have added some more, we're up to 7 inline citations and a nice history now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 4 November 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 The Beatles discography#Compilation albums. Sandstein 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Beatles

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

Non-notable Beatles compilation. There are dozens of one-off compilations released in foreign markets and nothing shows that this one is particularly special or has critical commentary. PROD was denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to The Beatles discography#Compilation albums. To say the band are notable is a bit more than just an understatement, and even obscure compilations can be notable, but only if they appear in multiple, independent, reliable sources - which this one doesn't. If it's non-notable Beatles albums you're after, try The Beatles vs the Third Reich instead. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 2 November 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 08:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mard ha ra qoul ast

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

Non-notable film, not much sourced, no specific info about the film (e.g. When did the film premiered, how much is the budget, writers of the film, producers of the film, director of the film, gross of the film, cast, etc.) Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator makes a good case for expanding this article rather than deleting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently a copyvio from [18]. However that site does seem to indicate this might be an important film in the history of Afgan films. However none of the sources really provide notability so it has to be Delete.--Salix (talk): 22:32, 1 November 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 09:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Megabeat 3

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

Lacks notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:NALBUMS, and completely unreferenced. - Mr X 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article indicates enough notability to pass WP:N. A quick search on Google brings up a lot of YouTube links, but I don't see any sources indicating much notability. Note that there are also Megabeat 1 and Megabeat 2 articles which have the same lack of notability and lack of reliable sources issues so they should probably be added to this nomination. Holyfield1998 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Delvone Ray

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

Hi all. I had trouble finding any secondary-sources on this musical artist - it is unclear where the information in the article comes from. I will happily withdraw ths nomination if sources are indentified, but for now I think this article may not meet the musician biography criteria. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely zero reliable evidence to suggest he is notable despite searching Google News and Google Books with "Richard Delvone Ray" and his alias "Mid-City Finite Square". However, I found profiles at Podomatic and Facebook. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would've given this one a csd. Doesn't seem notable. Dengero (talk) 11:04, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be the One (Lloyd song)

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

Notability tag since Dec. 2011. Is this really notable enough for its own article? The only ref is the music video. No critical commentary, etc. TV (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The song almost charted; not notable. - Mr X 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 26 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - did not chart, no references. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

INVO Bioscience

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

Highly promotional orphaned article that reads like a sales pamphlet. Continual discussion of "lower price", "more effective" (without proof). Unsourced, and does not meet WP:CORP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not demonstrate notability.--Hu12 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article as written skirts the line of irredeemable advertising. The sourcing in the article fails to demonstrate notability. My own searches turn up a flood of press releases and some minor mentions. the best of the lot is this item. i just don't see the coverage needed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 5 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Bashir

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

Article was previously deleted per WP:PROD, because the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid, as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 3 November 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 East Midlands English. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nottinghamshire words

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

A list of words suggested by Radio Nottingham listeners, according to the cited source. Non-notable and unencyclopedic. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands, not encyclopedic: too close to a dictionary. Dialect of Nottinghamshire might be a notable topic[19][20][21] (refs are indicative not proof of notability), but this article isn't about dialect, it's just a list of words. Is there a copyright issue since the list is largely copied off the BBC website? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, the list as currently presented is dreadful, largely uncited, and the rest is largely a list from a single phone-in radio type source. So it certainly needs rewriting. Two questions, therefore: 1) are there other sources? - yes, there are popular ones like Our Nottinghamshire; and there are academic ones which discuss in minute detail tiny subtopics in the comparison of Notts and other dialects, e.g. Heselwood and Upton. There is also discussion in introductory accounts such as Barbara Fuller's Great Britain, and examples of folk songs which have Notts variants Traditional Children's Games. 2) Is this a notable topic for an article? - It might be, I'll follow the discussion with interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already have East Midlands English, so this is redundant. Very few of the terms here are actually limited to Nottinghamshire, isoglosses not generally being fans of county boundaries. Morwen - Talk 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Midlands English in that case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Midlands English as suggested above. References are extremely weak, and removing the words that aren't purely Notts ones would leave almost nothing. And the whole basis of the article seems weak, as per User:Morwen.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:15, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEO Kids

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

No reliable sources at all to prove (at least) that this channel was ever planned. I don't know if there is a specific notability guideline for TV channels but it clearly fails WP:GNG SMS ^Talk 04:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally I would suggest merging this to Geo TV, but as the nominator suggests, I can't find anything on Google stating that such a network is even in the planning stages (you would think there would be at least a fleeting mention, considering this article was created six years ago). All I can really find is information on the unrelated National Geographic Kids channel. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After six years it's easy to assume that it's never "coming soon". Can't really argue for a redirect either per Erpert's reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 08:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 08:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no evidence to support this was ever planned with this name and the article has never provided an estimated time of establishment. As mentioned above, a search provides irrelevant results for National Geographic Kids so I added "Pakistan" to help widen the search...but found nothing. It is possible sources may not be English but I would have expected something translated to English after these many years. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Channel does not exist. Mar4d (talk) 00:38, 3 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman in Moscow

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

No critical reception. Music video was not released. Not really a stub, it's just not needed. TV (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first two (of three) references are Twitter feeds. Need I say more? - Mr X 02:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep or redirect - Billboard's chart history for Nicki Minaj suggests the song charted more than once. If the result is not keep, I would suggest redirecting to Pink_Friday:_Roman_Reloaded#Promotional_singles. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a redirect.--TV (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Billboard Hot 100 song. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editors may wish to read up our notability guidelines with respect to songs, especially those that have charted on national lists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 02:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Charted on two different Billboard charts. Cited. Passes WP:NSONG. Faustus37 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any criteria for (WP:NSONG), no justification for a seperate article -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NSONG states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts (emphasis mine), that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Given that Minaj apparently doesn't like the song, I'm sure there's a back story to be reported. Faustus37 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - charted single, it does need more references, however. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 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 Football in Tuvalu. Sandstein 08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu national under-20 football team

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

I have no reason to doubt that there is technically a Tuvalu U-20 team, but as the article indicates they have never played a competitive fixture, they would appear to fail WP:GNG inherently. Unlike the U-17 team also nominated for deletion, they do not even appear to have entered any level of the Tuvalu domestic cups either. I can find no evidence that they have ever played any form of competitive football and so exist only on paper. Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Next year in 2013, they participate for the first time at a tournament. OFC U-20 Championship in 2013. For this reason I have also made this Article. --Klant01 (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see this. Articles should not be created simply because they will come into existence at some point in the future. I am sure the U-17 team will play fixtures and when they do then that team may become notable. At the moment, as you have said yourself, they do exist only on paper and so the article should be deleted, or at best userfied so you can work on it in your userspace and promote it to the article page when it becomes relevant. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Football in Tuvalu - no evidence of independent notability. Wait until the team actually starts competing. GiantSnowman 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I get what you mean. Itself game them over a couple months, if Article becomes removes I will produce, if they have played a international Game. --Klant01 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:26, 26 October 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, Wifione ^Message 02:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Football in Tuvalu. The team isn't currently notable and there's an obvious merge target; it could be easily re-created if it became notable, but that's some way off. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge does seem to be the best thing to do, if they do play fixtures as anticipated in the near future then the page can be readily recreated. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 8 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Newell

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

University american football player, no professional play. Gigs (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NGRIDIRON on lack of pro play. All cited awards appear to be FSU team awards. Faustus37 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:ATHLETE and WP:NGRIDIRON. Qworty (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to have the coverage that WP:GNG requires, and I cannot find any other avenue to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not satisfy the SNG guidelines of either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON, and is therefore not entitled to a presumption of notability and must satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion per WP:GNG. My Google search turns up dozens, if not hundreds of hits, but that doesn't settle the issue, either. None of the 80+ hits that I reviewed provided substantial, non-trivial, non-routine coverage in independent reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:RS. (please note that fan blogs don't count as independent, reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability.) Based on my search, if this subject is notable, then virtually every letterman on a BCS college football team would likewise be notable. That's a bridge too far. If someone else turns up multiple examples of non-trivial, non-routine coverage of the subject in indepedent reliable sources, I would reconsider my !vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this meets the criteria and guidelines for WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.Gregoryat (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Query How? Please provide sources and exaamples.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Closing admin: Gregoryat is currently blocked for AfD abuse ~~and also has a history of conflict with Dirtlawyer1~~. Gigs (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - this looks like a clear keep based on WP:PROF #1. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McBride-Chang

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

I don't see any obvious reason that the subject passes WP:PROF, and I am not sure that her publications yet meet WP:PROF criterion 1. I recently trimmed this article substantially, so editors may also wish to look at the old version. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would the nominator care to give his views on the subject's citation record on Google scholar? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, I was hoping that other people could comment on that. I'm not an academic, and I have never had any personal involvement with the system of academic publishing and citation records, so I'm not the best judge of these things. I started a discussion at WikiProject Linguistics two days ago to try and get input on exactly this point, but it didn't receive any responses; I nominated the page for deletion partly in the hope that it would provide some clarity on PROF #1. If others are of the opinion that this is an obvious keep based on PROF #1, then I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—According to Web of Knowledge, Dr. McBride-Chang has an h-index of 14, based on 70 total publications archived, but h-index needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Psycholinguists do tend to be slightly better represented than other linguistic subfields in WoK. By way of comparison, Jean Aitchison has an h-index of 63, W. Tecumseh Fitch 21, and Lise Menn 8 according to WoK. Cnilep (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this very helpful information. According to my inspection of GS she has 11 papers with over 100 cites each and an h-index of 42, which would usually lead to a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: Dr. McBride-Chang is an associate editor of Developmental Psychology and has been published in peer-reviewed journals over 100 times. Both of her books have ISBNs and Library of Congress entries. Faustus37 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are very respectable academic achievements, to be sure. Unfortunately, none of them are enough to pass WP:PROF if you inspect the wording closely. The comments above about citation indices seem more promising, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on pass of WP:Prof#C1 on basis of citations in GS. A check of these and of WoK would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The citation counts in her Google scholar profile (12 publications with over 100 citations each and an h-index of 38 are more than high enough to show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, as Xxanthippe says. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 4 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Anthony Navarro

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

Having your work incorporated into notable works, and/or having notable relatives does not make you notable. There is an interview on a manga fansite, but it offers little in the way of biographical coverage. Unsourced BLP that has remained unsourced for many years. Gigs (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CREATIVE. Not a shred of WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good faith RS search: nothing. Fails WP:COMPOSER and/or WP:MUSICBIO. "Award-winning"? What awards? czar · · 19:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas (Jaci Velasquez album)

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

While I own this album and every other English-language album that this singer has released, this album does not meet notability guidelines listed at WP:NALBUMS, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Content should be merged into the artist's article or discography. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't even given a few minutes to add citations after objecting to the prod. I have expanded the article and added citations. Royal broil 01:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Now I cited that it charted on the Billboard 200 and peaked high on the Billboard Top Contemporary Christian album charts. I trust that's enough for a withdrawl or snowball keep? Royal broil 01:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Easily passes WP:NALBUMS if it charted in any sense. Faustus37 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has been updated with references, albeit some are weak. It charted on two Billboard charts: http://www.billboard.com/#/album/jaci-velasquez/christmas/497891 . Too bad I can't request to have the AfD revoked. ---Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually can have the Afd speedy closed if you want, would you like to withdraw it? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 1 November 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. Without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to and can write a more up-to-date, not copyvio-sounding and sourced article. Sandstein 08:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sampurna

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

No evidence found of "significant coverage" Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Probably doesn't even exist any more. The article was posted in 2008. First AfD in 2008 wasn't contested by author. If it hasn't had a source by 2012 that probably means it is defunct. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Encyclopedias cover history. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively it means its a crap article. I should have searched newspaper coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 06:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The relevant criteria here are WP:NGO. I'm satisfied it meets criterion 1 in that it's national in scope. As to 2, which is a restatement of WP:GNG essentially, we have coverage in the Indian Express and Times of India of an incident revolving around its founder's political connections. Also coverage in The Hindu re: political activities and a rape case. There's also some other trivial-looking coverage of conferences the NGO organized and such. But I'm satisfied it meets the criteria, if only barely. More sourcing is likely to exist in Hindi. --Batard0 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added those sources. I assume its the same Sampurna NGO? (are we sure?) If its in AP local sources would be in English or Telugu not Hindi, but evidently the newspaper coverage would be in India. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe that the sources located by Batard0 (I couldn't find any better ones) are substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 16:36, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can show that it is not a copy vio from the site. I tried to verify this, but the site appears down. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 7 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Summers

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

Does not meet notability guidelines as per Wikipedia:Notability (films). Premiere at Seminci is insufficient: needs to have won award. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 07:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search turned up only trivial references in Spanish media in relation to its filming and a small-ish film festival. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS. --Batard0 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG by having requisite more-than-trivial commentary and analysis... even if in Spanish sources.[22]Rolling Stone seems more that a "brief mention", and these other Spanish soutces are more than tivial. Article could benefit from use of these sources and regular editing, as non English coverage would certainly be expected for even an English language film premiered outside the US. It being unknown here is not a valid reason to delete. WP:CSB anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received coverage from reliable, independent sources. Coverage not trivial (e.g., times of film showing) as illustrated in WP:MOVIE. The fact that the coverage is in Spanish is irrelevant to the question of whether the film is notable. Lord Roem (talk) 03:44, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt's rationale. Cavarrone (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authentics foundation

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

Rather promotional, with no demonstrated notability. Given that there are references to a conference they held, it's not really a clear A7 or G11 DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Should be renamed Authentics Foundation, but seems to meet the WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. There's been a reasonable amount of coverage by Public Radio International, the BBC, Times of India, New York Times (op-ed, so take it for what it's worth) and some more. I'm not hugely impressed by the extent of the coverage, but I think it does meet the criteria. --Batard0 (talk) 05:25, 24 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 07:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, as has been provided above by Batard0. Meets the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organisations.--xanchester (t) 09:20, 25 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Green (musician)

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

Notability ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to xDEATHSTARx - Redirecting the article to xDEATHSTARx is a possibility as it seems I have found few sources independent to Tommy Green himself. I found a minor mention through a review here for a Sleeping Giant album. Google News also found another relevant link here (first from the top) but it's a dead link. I searched "A White Flag" (his other project) and "Religio-cide" (his book) but found nothing relevant and not surprising considering both of the projects were independent. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 19 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why we didn't WP:BLPPROD as it's an unsourced biography of a living person that was created after 2010. Go Phightins! 22:21, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- the article is heavily tagged as lacking WP:RS. It is over a fortnight since the first AFD. If not improved before this third AFD period closes, it should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 3 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Barton

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

Specious claim to notability through leadership of a small correspondence school. No real substantiation of notability through WP:GNG or WP:PROF, as all references are either not reliable sources or mere tangential coverage of Laurence Barton.GrapedApe (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for utter lack of WP:RS to substantiate notability, WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page appears to have been created by an SPA and the subject is not especially notable. However, the links: Fox, Bloomberg and CNN are reliable and the link content seems relevant. Am I missing something here? Kooky2 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two resources seem reliable enough to me. I can't understand what makes the subject more or less notable than any other university president. The American College is much more than a "small correspondence school" as noted above. It was founded by the the creator of life insurance and continues to certify thousands of life underwriters per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skids20 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's remarkable that Solomon S. Huebner (1882-1964) was "creator of life insurance", especially considering that the ancient Romans were using it and life insurance policies were being sold in the USA as early as the 1760s.(See Life insurance#History).--GrapedApe (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like an unproductive "discussion" now. I originally added this article because the page already existed and I found it via the list of Boston College people page. He was also included on the List of leaders of universities and colleges in the United States page, where I noticed that many other leaders and presidents had pages with articles already written. I was then told it may be a conflict of interest for me to have written this article because I work as a librarian for The American College. I understand and respect this policy. But if the sources and links that I have provided are not credible enough, and no one else is going to work to improve it, then I would like to see the page deleted. jhw46 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't think distance learning facilities are the sort of "major academic institution" WP:PROF#C6 was intended to cover, so to be notable for this position I'd prefer to see in-depth coverage in third-party reliable sources of the type described by WP:GNG. But I didn't find much; there seems to have been some minor press coverage of his 1994 book "The Enemy in the Workplace" but that's all I found, and it wasn't enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 4 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Call Fives

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

Non-notable local band. Article also lacks third party publications. Tinton5 (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough existing coverage in my view to satisfy WP:BAND #1 and WP:GNG. I found an MTV article [23], staff reviews at Punknews.org [24] and Sputnikmusic [25], and another review at Alternative Press[26]. Gongshow ^Talk 22:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Gong. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:53, 25 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 1 November 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 one contributor who has looked at this in depth has concluded that the two topics are not identical and both fail WP:GNG. Nobody has made a substantial argument to the contrary. So this one is deleted, but the other would need a separate discussion as it has not received an AfD tag. Sandstein 08:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Park Avenue

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

this is the same as 1 Park Avenue, right? Jawadreventon (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1 Park Avenue. Ha dg er 00:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the other into this one. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I don't think these are the same, even though they have the same name.
- See the map here. It is in a different place from the map here. Or so it would seem if you compare these locations using Google Maps. It seems these are quite close to each other, but not in the same spot.
- Now, having said this, One Park Avenue in Dubai has not attracted significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. A news search turns up nothing. A web search gives this article, which mentions the project in passing near the end (this, however, seems to be the building described in the 1 Park Avenue article). There's another very similar article here. I find no other coverage of "One Park Avenue" in Dubai in reliable sources; I don't judge forums at skyscrapercity or the emporis or other technical pages to be sufficient to establish notability. These don't go beyond listings of data, or are unreliable as forum posts. The project has been proposed, but there's been no indication that it's anywhere near getting off the ground four years later. It may have been an ephemeral proposal that never was covered in a significant way because it didn't go forward.
- Turning to 1 Park Avenue for a moment. There's a passing mention in this article, but it now sounds like it's describing the same building as One Park Avenue. This is the full extent of the reliable-source coverage I can find of the building. The rest is emporis, skyscrapercity and similar, as discussed above. Neither building passes the WP:GNG requirements, as neither appears to have progressed beyond the planning stages and never attracted significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 1 Park Avenue. Referred to as "1 Park Avenue" by its architect ~~Smith & Gordon~~ Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture. Faustus37 (talk)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disha College of Management and Technology

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

Too small to pass WP:CORP. May not exist: appears to be a "College of Management and Technology" without a website. Shirt58 (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Edit: does have a website: http://dishaworld.in.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said keep, considering that it is a school, but it would fail WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria. I searched both Google News US and India and only found one result (second from the top) and it requires payment but it appears to be somewhat third-party evidence to confirm the school exists. Unfortunately, I believe any additional sources may not be English and the article never provides a native name. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEnot notable.no good references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishrawat11 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notability due to lack of independent sources. The official website doesn't convince me that this college exists. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:19, 5 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Institute of Management and Technology

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

Has a website, but otherwise does not appear to exist. Shirt58 (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable academic institution, no references beside primary sources.Righteousskills (talk) 03:27, 29 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Certainly appears to exist, but couldn't find any reliable secondary source for its notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:02, 5 November 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. Though with a recommendation to merge all related subarticles into this. Sandstein 08:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu Games

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

Tuvalu Games brings back no real substantial third party sources that might be added to this currently unreferenced article. Although a national competition, it does, with the best will in the world, seem to have bypassed the attention of any significant news outlets. Secondly, whilst assuming the good faith of the editors who created it, it does seem little more than an article intended to provide a link to the same editor's article on football at the Tuvalu games as all other blue links point either the islands in general or sports in general. Appears to fail WP:GNG Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the sub-topics and individual sports into this article. I can't see how the Project would be harmed by having this topic, which must be sourceable somewhere. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 29 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this page remains. I have merged information on Football at the Tuvalu Games and added references. The Tuvalu Games is an annual event so that further information can be added in future years. There is an inline link from section on sport in the main Tuvalu page to this page. (MozzazzoM (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Does appear that there are a number of refs both from Tuvaluan websites and other more notable global sites such as RSSSF and World Soccer. Has potential to fulfill WP:GNG as a national competition. Agree with comments above that the article on football at the Tuvalu games should be merged to enhance the overall quality of the article. Doesn't appear to be any consensus to delete. I am happy to withdraw the nomination if approrpriate. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 5 November 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 POSIX. Or elsewhere, consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article, but where to cover it can be the subject of further discussion. The two "keep" opinions don't really address the guideline-based arguments against retention. Sandstein 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dirent.h

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

The article violates WP:NOTMANUAL and might have copyright problems. The page, except the introduction and the example, is almost literal quote of a man page. I think it should be redirected to POSIX or Folder (computing). 1exec1 (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nominator. 1exec1 (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote's for 'redirect'. As stated, it fails WP:NOTMANUAL, and doesn't really deserve it's own article. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:27, 24 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Seriously, this is just manual material, not even borderline. I did a quick check of the articles it sidelinks to, by the way, worried that there might be quite a lot of headercruft. None seem as bad. Morwen - Talk 13:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge this an other to The C POSIX library. The library is really influential, being the basic of unix, linux, etc. the design of this library is important. We should have an article on the library separate to POSIX (its currently a redirect). However we don't need the article on each particular part. So merge this and the 30 odd similar headers into The C POSIX library. Some of the such as <stdio.h> are important enough to deserve their own articles.--Salix (talk): 22:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep Tell the story, list a few keywords, but then link to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C_Programming/POSIX_Reference/dirent.h where it looks like someone has a full copy sitting there already? The entire side bar listed posix reference listing could be handled similarly? Oldspammer (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , like all C POSIX headers articles we have. Yes, I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best reason, but I'd like to strive for consistency: either we reason on them all (e.g. merging all of them in a single article), or we keep them all separated, or anyway we arrive at a criteria. If it reads like a manual, this can be solved by editing, not deletion. Oh, and of course it is notable -books cover it, e.g. here. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:25, 4 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back In Time (software)

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

Article lacks any WP:RS to establish meeting WP:GNG ... WP:PROD removed by author. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I actually use this software on a linux box. I think it is worth keeping this article. The software is quite good. I think the article does not do any harm and is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.197.9 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 October 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, Gongshow ^Talk 07:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The argument above is WP:NOHARM, but I think it meets WP:GNG. There's plenty of coverage about it in reliable sources in its field, including Linux Insider, Lifehacker and MakeUseOf. My reservation is that it doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT, which requires it to be discussed as significant in its field. I don't think it's discussed as significant in the above articles, just as a useful piece of software. It's a close one, but I believe there's barely enough coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 07:43, 24 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything on it. Corn cheese (talk) 17:38, 24 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Paisley Plaid

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

Subjects do not meet the notability criteria listed at WP:BAND or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The Paisley Plaid are notable for their body of work (8 albums in nine years), method of working (eclectic and innovative), philosophy (inclusive and tolerant). Outsider artists like this should be included as wiki material, otherwise wikipedia is not complete. Establishment artists are not the only artists. Wikipedia provides information beyond the usual avenues. The Paisley Plaid deserves inclusion for the sake of the spread of free information, and for helping to complete the base of knowledge available for research purposes... Also, please remember this article is a work in progress by a new user trying hard. -visualpxVisualpx (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I have a friend who has recorded ten albums in five years, yet he does not meet WP:BAND. Perhaps you could go read that guideline now and tell us which of those 12 they meet. It needs to be supported with reliable sources, not that I have any reason to doubt your word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have saved the text of the article in case it gets deleted and I want to resubmit a more pertinent one later. I'm assuming I would be allowed to try again in the not immediate future if the worst happens now.

I'm sorry your friend didn't get included. He deserves it, sounds like, although I have read the rigorous criteria for inclusion. I suppose people have discussed editing the criteria to allow outsider groups. Otherwise that would be my modest proposal. What do you think? Is there a chance to amend the guidelines for the sake of wiki completion?

Or... What if there were an article linking together outsider bands alphabetically, or something?

Best, visualpx (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I see now that I have two (2) citations or references so far that merit consideration for passing the bar here. They are to Future Music, a newsstand source; and to BLOG TO COMM, another independent and reliable reviewer. Hopefully that will be good enough to save the article. And more hopefully, much greater documentation will come in the future, as I would try to find it :) But for now, other than typos or formatting errors which I don't know about yet, I rest my case. I do hope it's good enough. It's been fun! visualpxVisualpx (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sorry, but this band is not "notable" in the wikipedia sense. By all means the creator should keep the content and put it somewhere on the web, but wikipedia requires WP:GNG to be met for bands to get their own articles, and there is no way this group meets WP:GNG. but if it did, I'd be busy creating articles on Our National Space and Cyrus Sullivan ("21 and legal").--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:20, 25 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed, the subject does not meet WP:BAND. Am happy to acknowledge it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:PROMO new, unique or up-and-coming bands - it's actually not the place to WP:PROMO any band, regardless of popularity. Wikipedia records what multiple reliable sources have determined is notable. There is, I'll acknowledge, an element of "establishmentism" to that and I'm all for "fighting the power" but Wikipedia is not the place for that either. That's what blogs are for. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Ash

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

No notability shown through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out the references that I added in to this page that I imagine are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please review Chezmcgee (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The news stories I found of Ethan Ash were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 He does not appear to be a very popular singer, but there is defiantly some notability in Ethan Ash looking at the sources I provided. Perhaps once he becomes more famous and has more notability than he currently does, then I would support having an article about him. Until then, it seems he does not have enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popularity is subjective. Using that as an argument, there are countless artists on here who should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.56.57 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an acceptable argument. Popularity (or rather notability) has to be proved, something that I don't think has been done here. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:36, 24 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 1 November 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomb Bassets

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

Unreferenced since created in 2006, article is about a non-notable band. Google search brings up nothing except blogs, YouTube etc and Amazon attempt to sell album. Discogs (how reliable is that?) says one album was recorded in 1997. I can find no independent coverage to suggest notability. BBC Music has nothing. It may be that associated pages should also be included, i.e. Sweet Baby, John Denery (a member of this band but also of four others that lack Wikipedia coverage) etc. Emeraude (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep They have a small write-up at allmusic [27], usually an indicator of notability. But the only other coverage i could find was a Phoenix New Times review of a split single [28], and the website of the free weekly Metroactive [29] calling their contribution to a compilation a stand-out. These are from '97 & '98 respectively, not a great time for finding online sourcing. (Discogs is fairly reliable loosely-speaking, but relies on user-submitted data and so not a WP:RS). 86.44.49.108 (talk) 03:42, 17 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - A short-lived Lookout! Records supergroup, including members of Sweet Baby and MTX. Esoteric, but this piece is factually accurate. Keep under IAR, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review: redirect to Dr. Frank. Carrite (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if improved. By virtue of being signed to a relatively successful label and containing members of other notable bands, this is notable. However, the article, such as it is, is awful, with no expansion on details or success. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:29, 17 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:35, 24 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 1 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Me (Daley song)

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

Does not indicate notability as per WP:NALBUMS#Recordings Prestonmag (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently unreleased, so remake if it charts upon final release. It is also the first single (apparently) by Daley, so it doesn't get notability that way either.

Keep - convinced by the recently-created sources that this is indeed notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough [30] [31] [32] [33] [34][35][36][37] media coverage. It is notable enough to have its own article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's a source review:
- A discussion with video at Thatgrapejuice.net. I think this site is of marginal reliability, but not wholly unreliable. It seems to be a one-man operation.
- This article at Alfitude is simply a posting of the video with no commentary. Not substantial coverage.
- This article at Digitalspy is very short, but I think digitalspy is a reliable source for these purposes. It's owned by Hearst, a large media conglomerate, and probably has some form of editorial oversight.
- This short description at Soulculture.co.uk is ok, but it is of fair reliability. It seems to have an editorial board, even though it's a blog.
- This article at altsounds is pretty in-depth, and it has editorial oversight.
- This brief synopsis at GRMdaily is trivial, and the site is of questionable reliability.
- This brief at Dropoutuk is similar in character to GRMdaily.
- This from the BBC is of sterling reliability but is trivial in nature.

Not much else is turning up. The WP:NALBUMS guideline says a single does not inherit notability and must stand on its own. Thus we go back to the WP:GNG. I think the coverage above passes those guidelines, but only just barely. A lot of it is trivial discussion and not all of it is in reliable sources, but I cede the benefit of the doubt here. --Batard0 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources. One more source heat Radio brief and reliable.--Salix (talk): 08:20, 2 November 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.