< 13 November 15 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. This is a tightly-written article with very little in the way of speculation, and the consensus is to keep it. I have to ask all parties who are heavily invested in this AfD: Is it really worth fighting this much over a short article that would be re-created soon anyway? Grandmasterka 05:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Australia 2012

Big Brother Australia 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted Jschro (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jschro (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article should be deleted for a number of reasons. In accordance with {{Crystal}}:

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

It is too soon for this article to be created and only verified information should be included in the larger Big brother Related article. In the short time this page has been in existence there has been a great deal of debate over verifiable sources and a recent edit war. As the launch approaches there will be an abundance of rumors and speculation that will pass through the mainstream media. While normally reliable sources of information there is a large amount of grey area over what should be included and what should not. I feel that having this page stay in it's current form is an invitation for countless edits and an ongoing battle regarding the reliability of source material. Included in this discussion should be discussion of an acceptable date for creation of this article as well as CLEAR guidelines on what should and should not be included in the future article but what should be included when or if the article is merged with the larger Big Brother topic. Jschro (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)— Jschro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep- There is no given reason as to why this page should be deleted. This page adheres to Wikipedia's rules and regulations. All information has come from official quotes and information provided by Nine and trusted affiliates. As far as I can see, everything that needs to be referenced is. Other countries have Big Brother pages for known seasons, I don't see why Australia is no different. I can understand if a page for 'Big Brother Australia 2013' would be deleted, but I cannot see why this one should. I think the person proposing deletion of this page has not thought this through properly. Any problems with the page can be discussed in Discussions and I would be happy to help and clean it up in regards to the problems, but without any given reasons, this is difficult to do. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have now provided reason which was not provided before, thank you. The problems you listed are evident in many Big Brother related pages, and I do agree it is a shame, however I am happy to help out with you or a team to get this page back on track. The majority of the information contained currently is informative and based on fact. I don't see why this page is being targeted, I don't think deletion is necessary, but I would say this page serves a purpose. It is not far too early as information about the series will become available as soon as next week when the Nine Network has its programming launch. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bbmaniac. You know as well as I that much of the up coming "information" will be purely speculation and rumor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a means for relaying rumor and speculation. Yes only after an edit war was the page brought up to "code" otherwise it did infact include information from unverifiable and unreliable sources and that will only continue as Big Brother 2012 picks up steam. As of right now there is very little information contained within the article and there isn't going to be much in the coming months which is deserving of inclusion in this article. Just because a source like News.com.au (which is normally a reliable source) does not make them reputable and certainly is not grounds for inclusion in the article. As I said before there is simply TOO MUCH grey area right now for this article to stand on it's own and its main purpose at this time is to act as a haven for unreliable information. Big Brother is likely to air in August of next year which is 9 months away it is still far too soon for this article to be as it is now. Jschro (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the upcoming information I am talking about will be from Nine Network's (the network in which Big Brother Australia 2012 will be airing on) 2012 Programming Launch to be held on November 23. Any information acquired from this will be as true and reliable as news can be coming direct from the source. The page has been cleaned up of rumour and speculation, as what is usually the case on Wikipedia. Anyone can go on any page dedicated to events that lie further into the future than Big Brother Australia 2012 (and yes, these pages do exist) and start rumours and speculation. Should these pages be deleted too? For as much speculation and as many rumours that will circulate over the next months, there will be ample verifiable news filtering through as well, so the page will grow. The votes below already verify that people value this page for its information (which at the present moment is all verifiable) and I just cannot see where the reason is to delete it. Bbmaniac (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the show actually starts in Australia then it will get an article, as Big Brother is an extremely notable reality show. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that's really the ONLY information there will be for a while that isn't either rumor or Speculation. Please review Crystal thoroughly before you cast your vote. Had you read WP:CRYSTAL you'd clearly understand why this has been nominated for deletion. Jschro (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to read CRYSTAL at all. If it was just solely rubbish sites like tabloids, gossip and reality sites, and whatever the local equivalent of Perez Hilton is down under, then yes, I'd definitely consider CRYSTAL. At this point though we have the national media backing it up boisterously. It's also very pointless to go through an AFD discussion if the article will come back anyway only hours after deletion when Nine does officially announce it. It's not hurting the site to keep this, as the sources are downright pristine compared to the usual reality show comeback articles. Also, why would you announce a show without a cast or basic production structure? The network and production company are doing exactly what should be done before a pickup is announced; have the cast and setting ready from well before announcement day to premiere. Nate • (chatter) 07:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taken directly from WP:CRYSTAL "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." In this case Reality Show and "Product are the same thing and right now aside from a few other bits of speculation the article is nothing more than a "Product Announcement". Any information that is going to possibly be released "soon" will not go into any great amount of detail and therefore would only be considered as part of the "Announcement" phase. "Until such time that more "ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE" about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." The key word being "UNTIL" so in other words "AFTER THE FACT" As a long time fan I can assure all of you that despite Nine's upcoming 2012 Schedule launch in a weeks time there will be very little verifiable facts released until at the very least 1 or 2 months prior to the actual launch of the show. This is the most important piece of information I can pass along to all of you and one that you all need to pay the most attention to and use in consideration when you are voting is "Speculation and rumor, even from RELIABLE SOURCES, are NOT APPROPRIATE encyclopedic content." Please don't think this discussion is over just yet people. I suggest you start looking beyond the surface on this one. This is clearly a WP:CRYSTAL matter. Jschro (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted key terms because I feel many of you need to review or seek clarification on their true definition because you clearly don't understand them.Jschro (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These people do understand what 'crystal balling' is. This article does not 'crystal ball' anything. Everything on the page is sourced with great verifiability, is not rumour and is a little more than just an 'announcement'. Here we have information on format and Southern Star's marketing of the show and its casting stage. But of course you would say 'we don't understand them', because as it usually goes with one unhappy editor (and in this case, it is literally only ONE of you), the fact that this page means more to people than just 'announcements' just isn't getting through.
In this instance, I point you to this very straight forward rule: WP:IAR which clearly states 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.', so even though it is without any doubt this page has no crystal balling going on; I would even still choose to ignore the rule legally under the basis that it is bringing people's fascination to the site and it educating them on information that, as I've stated numerously, IS VERIFIABLE- hence improving Wikipedia's knowledge base on the topic of Big Brother Australia. Bbmaniac (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Per WP:GNG and the show being confirmed. Sources are reliable and there is media coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: ""Blake was eager to dissolve one myth: We are talking to Channel Nine about next year and as much as I would like to joke about us definitely doing Big Brother, we're definitely not. [1] --LauraHale (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to change my vote to Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW. This discussion proves nothing more that this deletion nomination hasn't a Snowball's chance in hell at passing through to deletion. This tag is technically pointless and should be removed immediately. Bbmaniac (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proves yet again that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are completely missing the point. I have a great idea of what WP:CRYSTAL is and this is a text book case of it. There is little information in the article at this time and does NOT warrant it's own article. BBmaniac you have an obvious bias here. Again "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate."' end of story. As I said before BBmaniac this conversation is FAR from over. Jschro (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually want to move for wp:SPEEDY because this conversation is going nowhere. The Article and it's sources are really nothing more than promotional at this time. WP;CRYSTAL states that pages that are nothing more than product announcements (which is all that this article IS or is going to be for sometime) are grounds for deletion. There are too many people commenting here that haven't a clue what they are talking about and clearly MUST be deleted.Jschro (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I just changed my vote from 'Keep' to 'Speedy Keep' which doesn't prove that I haven't a clue what I'm talking about; it solidifies by stance on the topic. This discussion is going no where? Clearly it is; and it is in the direction to keep. We've explained why your WP:CRYSTAL claim is nonsensical and you repeating it over and over is the only reason why any further discussion on that topic is pointless.Bbmaniac (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart, can you clarify which part or parts of the article in question is 'rumour, speculation and hype'? All information contained in the page is verifiable and confirmed information from respected sources. Bbmaniac (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bbmaniac check your emotional attachment to this article at the door. The articles creator SHOULD NOT be involved in this debate. Over the next YEAR (yes BB will NOT air for close to a YEAR from now!) this page will be a haven for vandals and unverified rumors. There is very little information within the article in its current form BUT over the coming year WILL and HAS been subject to the items Stuart talks about. Clearly you feel the fact that an article YOU created is marked for deletion is a personal attack on you and any response from you on the subject is purely emotional. This is not helpful in any way. It is still very clear that this article should be merged with the larger Big Brother Australia article until there is more verifiable and factual information. We are not questioning whether the series will happen or not but that there will be little information released for sometime the series to warrant it's own article at this time. Please stop spreading your uneducated emotional nonsense in this discussion. 142.110.227.191 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Uneducated emotional nonsense" - Do I see a Personal attack? I think someone should assume good faith when dealing with other editors, and discuss civily with them. And Bbmaniac can be involved in this debate, regardless of what fictional policy you pulled "The articles creator SHOULD NOT be involved in this debate" from. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spend too much time deliberating on this issue as it isn't relevant to the discussion, but as the articles creator, I have the utmost right to be apart of this conversation. The emotional attachment you speak of is an unprovoked attack on myself. I do not feel as if this deletion tag is a 'personal attack' in any way and I applaud it coming to light due to the discussion it has raised. I do not write with emotional bias, I simply state facts when I see them. I have simply rebutted Stuart's opposition to the article, which I am free to do so. I accept his position, however I am well within my rights to discuss with him his points. I never said this was a discussion as to whether or not the series will go ahead, I know this series is going ahead. This discussion IS about whether this page fouls WP:CRYSTAL which, in my opinion, it does not. This is the only way I have defended this article, I have written nothing about whether the show has been confirmed or not. While I will take your thoughts on me being 'emotional' as petty, I will say that I have gone about this discussion with full knowledge on Wikipedian regulations, so do not call me uneducated. Not to make this sound like a personal attack on you or anything, but you have written on behalf of someone else's comment, under an anonymous guest signature, added little to this discussion and launched a personal attack on me. Excuse me if I and the rest of the community ignore your comments in future. Bbmaniac (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok could someone explain how as the article sits right now is really any different that a product announcement? Also what significant pieces of information you believe will be released in the immediate future? If current rumors are true there is still approximately 8 months until the show is launched. Historically the bulk of information is released no earlier than a month or a few weeks before the show is launched and I don't anticipate this to change. I also don't anticipate there will be a significant amount of information to be released at Nine's program launch next week aside from a solid confirmation that the show will return. Can you not at least see some benefit to merging with the Larger Big Brother article for the time being? Jschro (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, Jschro. This isn't just an 'announcement' of the show. We currently have verifiable information on the channel it will air on, the format of the show, discussions taking place as to the location (I might add that while this discussion is not finite and could be viewed as just speculation, these comments come from 'the horse's mouth' so to speak and do contribute to the overall knowledge base on this article), we know marketing strategies and casting initiatives courtesy of creators, Southern Star Group and we also know that Nine is specifically going to launch the series after the Olympics. Therefore, this page is a little bit more than a product announcement. There will be more information coming out, however despite what 'history has shown us', predicting when that information will be released is 'crystal balling' in its own right. It could be released next week or in a few months. Bbmaniac (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nine is specifically going to launch the series after the Olympics." We don't know that for sure yet even the article implies that it is "expected" and even the "format" can still be contested as there hasn't been a solid "confirmation" from either Nine or Endemol yet. Jschro (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has been no official word made by Nine directly, however articles published on TV Tonight (the author of which is a long working respected member of the media who has ties with CEO David Gyngell) credits statements from Nine Network officials. That and other newspaper articles which credits in the same manner pretty much confirms these details. While this is not 100% confirmation, it is close enough for it to be allowed to be published on the page with the advice that it is still expected. Bbmaniac (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in the cases you've provided your sources are neither reliable nor verifiable because there is no direct link. The Entertainment media will often run articles that are highly speculative or based on unnamed and therefore unveridiable sources. Also in the interest of promotion networks will feed rumors through the press. Take Big Brother UK for example, Richard Desmond owns both Channel 5 and the Daily Star who ran several story's leading up to the launch of the show that contradicted reality. Tabloids and other entertainment outlets are notorious for putting their own interests before the truth. Now while we are not necessarily interested in "the truth" it is pretty hard to verify claims made by an unnamed "spy" or Representative. Sources that rely heavily on rumor are Questionable and are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties. It is not just the publisher that has to be reliable it is also the content sourced within the article that need to be verifiable as well. "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.)."Jschro (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided reasons as to why the sources are reliable. They're not perfect, but they're not 'rumour' sites. They are trusted and credible and hence verifiable. Many television articles on Wikipedia begin with quotes from these sources. But, if you don't like them, that's fine. However in this case it is up to the general community to make that decision and many have discussed their approval of them. These are not 'out there' rumours, this information is very much verifiable and is no less factual than a good 90% of television related information on Wikipedia. Bbmaniac (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a key quote. "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.)" It is not just the publisher that it subject to verification but also their work. While most articles will be considered reliable sources there will also be times when their work is questionable. In this case if an article credits an unnamed source it can only be considered rumor and is therefore questionable. ALL Entertainment sites are notorious for speculating and printing rumors. This is not a matter of my own personal opinion but a widely accepted fact. There is absolutely no way to verify claims made by an unnamed source. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors and a questionable source is on that relies heavily on rumor. In this case the source that must be verified is the actual work itself not the publisher or author. Jschro (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you could question A LOT of what is said on Wikipedia. Again, I have told you why the author of TV Tonight is credible and verifiable and the fact that pretty much EVERY newspaper in Australia has picked up on this news brushed off your claim that this is 'gossip' or 'rumour'. It is a widely accepted fact that the format and the air date has been locked in by Nine. Again, it is up to the people to decide and clearly, what they have seen is good enough for them and I would expect most of these people HAVE a considerable amount of knowledge over the way this event has been reported.Bbmaniac (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again it is not JUST the Author that needs to be subject to credibility or verification but ALSO the actual WORK being cited. Entertainment Websites are notorious for circular sourcing other media outlets. One particular article that was recently used as a source in the 2012 article was reporting on a report run by the Daily Telegraph which was reported to them by a media "spy". There were also several other papers that ran similar stories all based off of the Daily Telegraph "rumor". What I am telling you is exactly WHY the author is NOT creditable or verifiable in this case you need to make sure the WORK itself is verifiable before it can be considered reliable.Jschro (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a TV Tonight article. http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/11/sonia-kruger-to-host-big-brother.html
What is the First word in the article? Please tell me again that they are not a "Rumor" site. What about thos widely accepted facts about Hamish and Andy Hosting? I mean ALL the media outlets were reporting they were dead certain for the role only to retract the story a few days later. Many of these were quoting very trust worthy "insiders" too.Jschro (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If stuff from that article was used in this Wikipedia article, I would agree it would need to be deleted. But the stuff cited came from articles that were created under the guidance of Nine spokespersons. But in this case, common sense would prevail in saying that stuff from THAT PARTICULAR article would be pure speculation. Unlike most news outlets, David Knox has made it very clear that this is a rumour, however its newsworthiness comes from the fact it is a rumour based on good merit. That being said, the information within would not be deemed newsworthy here on Wikipedia. None of the information in the BBAU2012 article can be classed as the type of rumours found in the above link. Again, David makes it very clear what is rumour and what is news. There has also been a general consensus here on this page that the information found in the BB2012 article is verifiable enough. Even moderators have deemed it worthy.Bbmaniac (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article being sourced before you open your mouth again. You are just digging yourself a deeper hole in this argument "I understand we are doing it,” a Nine source confirmed." is far from verifiable. David Knox wrote an article based on the one written in the Herald Sun and this quote is taken from the bottom of the article "Update: I have now confirmed the story, with sources, but it’s “early days” on all the details…" I'll post links below for you but I'd say a lot of the information in both of these articles (both are sourced in the 2012 entry) are pretty shaky at best. Other than the claim that the source "understands" they are doing the show there is little connection between the source and the other claims being made. If a credited source isn't named it is pretty hard to prove verifiability.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv-radio/big-brother-returning-to-australian-television-in-2012/story-e6frf9ho-1226133266986
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/09/big-brother-secrets-to-air-on-nine-in-2012.html Jschro (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your Cocksureness astounds me Bbmaniac. I doubt anyone has gone far enough as to actually read the source material and are basing it on the assumption that the articles are published by what would under normal circumstances be reputable. Jschro (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per {{Crystal}}. The article can be recreated when the show airs. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Bbmaniac there is NO "confirmed" information out there regarding Nine's plans to market the show and this source that appears to "confirm" Big Brother's schedule is laughable. They don't even credit an unnamed source! http://molkstvtalk.com/opinon/latest-news-photo-finish-its-a-knockout-big-brother-australia/ Jschro (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another piece of fine journalism! In the same sentence they claim Nine are refusing to comment but then seem to claim that they know the series will be produced on a "smaller scale". Again they don't even credit a source or a Nine Spokesperson. How is this creditable? How are any of these claims verifiable?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv-series-big-brother-is-set-for-a-reboot-with-a-2012-version-believed-destined-for-channel-9/story-e6frexlr-1226133304962 Jschro (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this source "confirms" Southern Star Entertainment are accepting as the article puts it "pre-audition applications for people who are interested in participating on the season" Even the facebook page they link to in the source claims anything like that. You know so much for the page containing only factual information!
http://www.southernstarentertainment.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=5
https://www.facebook.com/BigBrotherAU Jschro (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBmaniac your cockyness astounds me. The source material I've questioned is clearly NOT suitable material! You and others like you are making very uneducated assumptions and again you are making emotional arguments. Any support you're revived is far from OVERWHELMING. Also DO NOT EDIT MY POSTS! It is not your place to do that.
I think you'll find that it is overwhelming; just look at the above responses. All but a few of them are in favour to keep. Let me remind you of my original argument and that of WP:IGNORE whereby it is necessary to ignore standard modes of operation in favour of the quality of information on Wikipedia. Here, you don't agree the sources are valid. We could technically wait until we have full, bonafide guarantee from Nine, but when there is 99.9% certainty, withholding information is hindering the quality of this page. This page serves a purpose because despite the fact no word has come from Nine, it is with almost 100% certainty (there isn't much between this and the actual certainty) that there will be a series and it will follow format mentioned in the article. As I've said, MANY seasons of MANY shows have been created successfully on Wikipedia using references to articles much less credible than the one's used now. This page for some reason is coming under more intense scrutiny despite the fact people are well adjusted to the fact that the sources used are to be trusted. You continue to draw reference to things like 'New York Times' and 'Oxford' as examples of 'good quality sources' which is crazy as news from the world of television is seldom broken in these publications. They are often broken in sources like TV Tonight and the Sydney Morning Herald, both of which show VERY CLEARLY what is rumour and what is not. There is no information on the page that misleads people into thinking it is pure fact, but it serves a purpose because the certainty of the events listed happening is based on a very educated guess and is well received by the community. And Jschro, I will not be editing your post again, considering any uninvolved admin will NOT just look at ONE PART of the discussion ANYWAY, as you so requested. But I strongly urge you that in future, you MUST ask an uninvolved admin to review THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION as your request is basically asking the admin to view your side of the argument only. Bbmaniac (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And let me just add, that at least this page HAS references. Many pages on Wikipedia has information that goes unreferenced due to the community consensus that the information is true. This article has full, verifiable pieces of referenced information that the community clearly agrees is true. There is a massive, nationwide acceptance amongst the media that most of the clarified items in the article are in fact true because there's little chance (if any) that it isn't. This is a confirmed series with a very much confirmed format and timeslot, the information in context is referenced appropriately and the community (both on Wikipedia and outside) backs it up. Bbmaniac (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't speak for the entire community. Just because people have voted a certain way doesn't mean they understand the full scope of the situation. The page at face value appears to be in ship-shape but when you look at it in depth as I've illustrated it is not all it appears to be. What you fail to understand here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT a means for relaying rumors or speculation. There is little benefit to Wikipedia as a whole in doing so. As I've illustrated above the majority of sources are not verifiable and you are 100% correct in saying that the quality will drop of the article if those sources are excluded. This is the perfect argument for the article to be merged with the larger Big Brother article until such time that more verifiable information is available. You've just illustrated the point I've been making all along here, There is no great importance to the article as it currently stands. There is very little actual verifiable or encyclopedic content. By ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines this article is nothing more than a means for relaying rumor and speculation about the show. The fact that there are other articles on the site who are violation of the guidelines is completely irrelevant, we are ONLY talking about the merits of this article. From what has been said here there is no indication that the others are in agreement of a violation but merely that there is a general belief that everything appears to be in order. I've been following the shows revival since the announcement was made in September and I would not say that there is a "massive" consensus or acceptance of any of the details you speak of and very little of it is verifiable. The shear number of media outlets reporting these claims is irrelevant and due to circular sourcing of many of these articles they are far from verifiable. Because the project is still very much in the planning stages there is actually a pretty significant chance that details will in fact change before the show airs. For that reason it is extremely hard to say without a doubt that any unverifiable claims made by the media are dead certain. Nine Network is currently on the verge of bankruptcy and much of the media are expecting a change in ownership before years end. This could bring significant doubts over whether Big Brother will even make it to air on the Nine Network or whether there will be significant changes to the plans that are already in place. I'm not saying this is certainly the case but there is a chance it might happen. Deleting this article will by no means hurt Wikipedia and in fact the community as a whole will see the benefit of it. The larger article as it stands at the moment is far from perfect. Merging will encourage improvements as well as make it easier for all of us editors to monitor content being shared about the upcoming series. I still fail to see the exact purpose this article has other than acting as a product announcement and a means of sharing unverified information. I fail to see how it currently benefits Wikipedia as a whole. Despite the current consensus on the matter there are currently more benefits to merging than there are to keeping. I just hope the Admins who have the final say on this agree based on the information I've provided. Bbmaniac the more you argue your point on this matter the weaker your argument becomes. Please stop speaking like you are the voice of the community as you have no indications as to how many of these people came to the conclusions they did. BTW I don't need to explain to you my motives behind asking for a review of a certain block of comments and it is not up to you to decide whether I was right or wrong in doing so.Jschro (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hamish and Andy were widely reported to have landed the hosting role and many media outlets reported this was a dead certainty. The duo later denied this claims as false. This is a great example of my arguments. Just because something is reported by several media outlets does not mean it is verifiable nor does it mean any of the claims are true. I'd like to draw your attention to this news.com.au article that states little is known or confirmed about the series. Including the format, future home, or production schedule despite making claims that support the "Secrets format" and other claims you are under the belief are "widely accepted" facts. You will most likely find that other outlets reporting these "facts" are in fact guilty of circular sourcing other articles. Most of these articles are implying that these "facts" are only rumors. Any public opinion regarding these supposed fact would there for be considered irrelevant.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/hamish-blake-and-andy-lee-set-to-run-the-big-brother-tv-house/story-e6frfmyi-1226162682751 Jschro (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jschro, might I say thank you for a very decent response. The way this comment was worded was much more in line with a mature discussion. I've read your article and in no way does it imply 'with great certainty' that Hamish & Andy were locked into the hosting role. In fact, the first key point the article had at the top of the page was: Hamish and Andy among names for Big Brother which pretty much concludes that Hamish & Andy were not actually confirmed at all to be hosts. And it may well have been that Nine were considering them; I wouldn't be surprised. Using the same example, and I haven't seen one long-held edit which had this BBAU2012 article claiming they were the hosts anyway. Also, the source that I said was credible, TV Tonight, never even ran with this story, well they did, but it was only an opinion piece as to why Hamish & Andy were not going to be good hosts. The title of that article had a big fat '?' in it as well. And even with confirmed things, like when TEN 'confirmed' Don't Stop Believing, the network can (and in this instance, did) pull the show from their schedule. So I don't think the information on this article is any less guaranteed to go ahead as any confirmed media information. Bbmaniac (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'What you fail to understand here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT a means for relaying rumors or speculation.'- Again, your idea of what 'speculation' is differs from a majority of people that read this page.
'There is little benefit to Wikipedia as a whole in doing so.'- look at the people who want the page to stay- it is clearly not HARMING Wikipedia.
'the quality will drop of the article if those sources are excluded'- if and when 'proper' sources come in to confirm everything on this page, it will look silly to just reestablish it with the same information, JUST because someone didn't trust some of the sources. I continue to feel that this article has a place on Wikipedia, as do many others. Bbmaniac (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems counter productive to delete this (fairly reasonable, decently referenced) article now, and then start it up again from scratch when the show debuts. All the preliminary information will be lost, and it will be difficult to retrieve all this relevant early information - and sources - at that time. Isn't WP about collating information about notable things? Therefore we don't want to lose it, it will be difficult to recreate after months have elapsed. Format (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Bbmaniac it's you that is putting lipstick on a pig. Please stop speaking like you are the voice of the people you have no indication of how others think, feel, or came to the conclusions they did. It's not helping your case.Jschro (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly before I begin, Jschro, I don't claim to 'speak like I am the voice of the people', I'm just stating what the general consensus is according to the above votes to keep and the comments associated. Well, I have proved time and time again why the references and information are verifiable and viable for a Wikipedia article yet you still don't seem convinced. Clearly you see this information as false. Yes, this information has not yet been absolutely confirmed by Nine, but if the information was still up-in-the-air then surely there would be articles out there opposing the news of the show's format and timeslot. The fact is, there isn't. Not one source out there flatly denies or even questions the format or timeslot of the show; proving the information's resilience to criticism and strengthens its validity. Considering this discussion is about to be reviewed, I will say one last thing to conclude and finalise the points being made to save the article. The main opposition to this page is that the information contained in the article apparently breaches some of Wikipedia's rules, most notably WP:CRYSTAL. But as this discussion hopefully points out according to the comments made by many of the participants, the information contained does not, in any way, attempt to crystal ball events in the past and is based on verifiable information sourced from incredibly credible sources. Sources of which have been used on many Wikipedia articles and have in the past passed as a rich source of worthy information. The article does contain information that may not be confirmed but its inclusion is necessary and improves the overall article with any information that did not having been removed. Another key opposing point is the suggestion this page be created later when 'confirmed' information comes to light. This 'confirmed' information (that is, information that is sourced from the Nine Network) is almost certain to agree with what has already been posted, therefore making any delays in creating the article pointless and hence, not beneficial to Wikipedia's quality. 'Confirmed' information is set to be released as early as Wednesday, adding to the pointlessness of having this page deleted. It also seems that the main opposition to this page is based on personal thoughts and beliefs, and does not reflect the wider Wikipedia community. As the discussion moves on, it is clear that opposing points deflect away from talk about how the article offends Wikipedia's rules and regulations and moves towards what one individual thinks about page creation and information. This is partially because most points about how this page offends Wikipedia's Rules and Regulations have been cleared up and the general community consensus seems to agree with the points against the opposition. While the saviour of this page will not rely on this conclusion, I hope than when reading through the votes to keep and delete, this conclusion will make it very clear just how important this article is to Wikipedia. Bbmaniac (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as anyone could have told you before; Nine has confirmed the format via an advertisement. Bbmaniac (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was only asking for someone to come and review the discussion; I wasn't actually asking for votes or anything. I was just hoping that when the time came to review the discussion, someone would be on board to do this. If you want me to retract my comments, I am more than happy to; but I was in no way trying to draw attention to the topic based on my own want of support; but for someone to come in and review this page. Bbmaniac (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through their respective edit histories I'm seeing a few edits to the talk pages of people who seem to already understand how AfDs work (+ people who had already voted), if any of these were canvassing they're complete failures. I see no influx of users to the debate which is the tell-tale sign of successful canvassing. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomek Czerwinski

Tomek Czerwinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A community college decathlete. Has not competed at the international level. Fails WP:NTRACK. References given are either non-independent or briefly mention Czerwinski. Prod was contested on grounds that he will compete for Poland at the Summer Olympics. I cannot find any evidence he is on the Polish team or eligible for the team. If he competes in the Olympics, the article can be re-created. Bgwhite (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - I am very educated on the sport of track and field and the decathlon event. I have coached track and field for 34 years. I do not know this individual personally, but in the track world he is a well known rising star. His parents immigrated here from Poland so he has automatic dual citizenship, and his marks show (to anyone knowledgeable of the decathlon) that he will be at the international level, but in order not to jeopardize his college eligibility they must technically keep it out for now. He is extremely popular and this article must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnit (talk • contribs) 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Macnit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete - It would be rude to delete this individual's article based on your lack of knowledge of the sport. The sources don't specifically state him competing at the international level, but as a very experienced coach and official, I can say that he is very big underground in the decathlon world. Leave the post and it will be edited as his career unfolds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtracker (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Mrtracker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Striking the !vote above. Mrtracker has been confirmed by a checkuser as a sockpuppet of Macnit per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macnit. Deor (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than a few mentions in places that don't really count as reliable sources, this guy doesn't qualify for an article at this point in time. We can't justify keeping an article because Czerwinski might turn out to be big. WP:CRYSTAL There's a lot of very promising athletes that never make it big for whatever reason. Also, be aware that this is not decided on a vote. It doesn't matter if this gets a dozen accounts all saying "don't delete". If they can't provide sources to prove notability in the here and now (and saying he might one day be notable doesn't count), then they won't outweigh the people saying "delete" that can justify their opinion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletes have it by the numbers and the argument: there are too many question marks about the reliability/notability of the Tranny Award. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Daly

Amy Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails the GNG, all relevant GNews hits are press releases or presskit pieces, all GBooks hits appear to refer to similarly named persons. Fails WP:PORNBIO and all other relevant SNGs. The claimed "Tranny Award" is actually a website poll (with unverifiable results) conducted by a porn studio the subject works for, and is neither independent nor significant; it's in the nature of an "Employee of the Month"-type award, and has been rejected as demonstrating notability in prior AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - most pornstars nowadays aren't notable, and this man/woman/futanari is no exception. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument that Amy Daly has won the tranny award is equivalent to a employee of the month award has no basis. To state the award is a web site poll, is clearly inaccurate. Especially since there is footage of her receiving the award and the award ceremony on the internet(youtube.com,Tgirls.com has much of the footage). Amy Daly won the award and then was granted a web site following the winning of the award, which launched almost a year later. There is no evidence to support that the Amy Daly was an employee before or even now as she works with many companies in her industry as that is the nature of the pornography industry. Claim of conspiracy to discredit an award, is not a valid claim. If you do your research, you will find that these are the premier awards for the transsexual pornography industry. There are also further sources on this including the tranny awards web site itself: at http://www.trannyawards.com/2009winners.php. Aside from the Tranny award that she has won, she has also been nominated by AVN for transsexual performer of the year, which is documented in the article. Amy Daly was also featured on Entertainment tonight under the name of Jackie in 2007, which you can see here: http://new.etonline.com/celebrities/spotlight/2007/05/48166/ (she is in the yellow). The above comment by Madison chan refering to Amy Daly as a man/woman/futurani is evidence to show that there is possible biased being used because the subject is transgender. I have added further sources to the article. I would go as far as to say that this deletion request is frivolous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSWikis1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the award is not given by a website poll, why does the official description of the award [2] say the award "will be done by fan vote", with participation limited to paying members of the Grooby website and its affiliated paysites? AVN said the awards "were voted on by members of various TS-related websites" They're website polls. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not biased becuase the subject of the article is transgender, I'm biased because he/she didn't seem to be important. The fact that he/she won the "Trannsexual Of The Year seems to be notable, though, so I'll change my vote to keep, and you need to stop biting the newcomers, for God's sake. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the "award" is a non-entity with respect to reliable sources and is therefore insufficient to support a claim for notability. What we get here, then, is an article with references mainly to primary sources. I lean towards the "inclusionist" approach here, but even I can see that the claims for "keep" here are lamentably weak. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references provided support claims of notability. Concerned about transphobia at work here. PinkPolitico80 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)PinkPolitico80[reply]

  • Comment – Nobody's said it's less notable because it's transsexual. The Tranny Award in particular happens not to be objectively notable, and so doesn't meet our current understanding of WP:PORNSTAR guidelines. And nobody has drawn a causal link but you. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And cleanup where still necessary.  Sandstein  20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Drahotova

Veronika Drahotova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown artist. Hardly meets notability criteria. Basically unsourced. Main contributor User:Jatras is a single-purpose account, possibly in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find anything reliable to show that she passes WP:ARTIST. She's very prolific and probably comes closer to passing the guidelines than some of the other artists that are added on here, but she's just not there quite yet. A search doesn't bring up any reliable sources. I did go over the article to clean up the massive amounts of linkspam, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems fine per the evidence provided by Vejvančický above, but currently reads like a promotional piece so this SPA editor probably needs some coaching and a close eye needs to be kept on the article.. - filelakeshoe 17:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. I hope Vejvancicky will make something out of this article. I removed a list of group shows and pruned the linkfarm a bit, adding an interview with Czech radio. I was going to close this, but now that I've edited it some I'm probably too invooolved. Still, I think this is a keeper--though I agree that it is a horrible article, haha. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Ling

Kiwi Ling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no evidence the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. All GNews hits apparently relate to other individuals with similar names; only GBooks hit is a passing mention in somebody's literacy-challenged, self-published/POD discussion of his favorite porn films. No reliable sources for any biographical content. Although the subject is credited with winning an AVN Award by the article, she is not mentioned in the AVN awards announcement [5], or listed as having a billed role in the release [6] [7]. She apparently was one of about two dozen extras who shambled around the set, topless in zombie makeup, watching other performers have sex. Even if one were to accept a broad reading of PORNBIO's award criteria, this still would set the notability bar far too low. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: Messages striked out due to my own error. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do only participate in deletion discussions, but why is that a bad thing? If I only want to contribute to one part of Wikipedia, can't I be allowed to do so? And I am NOT A SOCKPUPPET, by the way. Don't bring it to them. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PORNBIO is not exactly a model of clarity. The ambiguity concerning whether an award won by two or more people ever qualifies as "Has won a well-known award" doesn't need to be resolved for the present purposes. It's sufficient to determine that a nine-person award sufficiently dilutes the commendation that it doesn't pass muster. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per existing and not-yet-deprecated PORNBIO, which does not disinclude consideration of group recognition... just as do not other SNGs that speak about other types of awards. It can be also argued that WP:ANYBIO is also met in that her AVN award is well-known and notable to those readers who appreciate her genre (personally, I do not). If a detemination is made that awards given for group efforts are inherently non-notable, no matter which organization is giving them or why, we will have a lot of rewriting of guideline in the next few months. But naturally AFD is not the place to rewrite guideline, but rather to apply the ones we have. {struck above) Delete per lack of verifiability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The deal here is not the guideline but the verifibiliaty... the fact that she is not not mentioned in the AVN awards announcement as she is not mentioned in the IAFD and AVN pages for that title makes me reasonably doubt she had more than an uncredited, extra role in that movie and in that scene.--Cavarrone (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, you're right. Well, if it turns out the sources I added are just things someone made up, I won't have a problem with a delete. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long-time contributor of the IMDB site, with more than 3000 updates in the last seven years (and at least third of them are corrections), I cannot say I consider it a fully reliable source... and if today I decide to update that IMDB page deleting this award-winning or also deteting her from the cast of the movie you can feel sure that in a couple of weeks you'll have no traces of this source... about the "SweetTime Forum", obviously it is not reliable and probably "MoNutz", the author of the post, took the information just from imdb--Cavarrone (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, you'd likely also have to include evidence, such as screenshots or video clips of the onscreen credits to confirm to them that your removal was valid. And shortly after such a deletion, someone would submitt a re-add based upon the AVN review which lists her as minor cast. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMDB is NOT reliable as it is user-edited like Wikipedia. It would be akin to using Wikipedia itself as a source. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          To clarify, IMDB is NOT user edited, as users do not have any direct access to their databse. IMDB users may submit to the IMDB database editors, who then supposedly check the submitted information for accuracy before themselves making any additions or changes. IMDB's unreliability is seen through its failure offer any tranparency of their vetting processes, its inclusion of trivia, and its use of unregulated forums. It DOES include information that even Wikipedia grants is reliable, such as stats from the WGA, and such film information that can be found in the onscreen credits of the films themselves... but all we use it for here is as an EL in articles and a jumping off point in our own searches for reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
          • The "awards" section usually is reliable though (the "trivia" section, on the other hand...). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Using it as a jump-off point, the IMDB awards page links to the awarding organization, AVN... which itself shows that the film did win the award, but there is no indication that Kiwi in her minor role as "Zombie girl" actually received one herself. So though it might say so on IMDB, it does not on the AVN site, and when it comes down to who to believe, I'll go with the awardng organization, as they're in a better position to know. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment mmmmmmm.... I've changed my !vote from Weak Delete to Delete. I am increasingly concerned that her role in that movie was not more than an uncredit, unimportant extra role. CAVR and X Critic, the most known and probably the preeminent adult movie reviewer-sites, do not mention her among the cast members, on the other hand the AdultDVDTalk review lists her in the cast but does not cite her in any scene description.--Cavarrone (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would anyone object to my userfying this? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not appropriate to have a biography of a living person unless there's some way to confirm that there's at least some element of the bio that isn't pure kayfabe.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is not a notable porn star. --Saladacaesar (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PORNBIO is essentially a dead letter anyway, which is what happens when you overreach. Person does not meet GNG or come close; it is a BLP with zero reliable sources and must go. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  As stated at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability."  The same applies here, the actress satisfies WP:N through WP:PORNBIO, but is not an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The only keep votes were arguments based on book holdings, but that books are held in libraries does not establish notability. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond C. Gruss

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Edmond C. Gruss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and all criteria of WP:PROF Mention of him is either passing mention or are not intellectually independent of each other. StandFirm-JW (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA: "However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." StandFirm (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, so far as I am aware listing in Worldcat or his books being held by a relatively few scholarly libraries does not establish notability. StandFirm (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete just yet - doesn't seem notable at all to me, only Ghits are people selling his books and Gbooks hits are his books. I'm going to have to a more exstensive search to tell if he's really notable, though. Maybe tomorrow. --Madison-chan (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, let's actually take a look at those three Keep votes from the last AfD, shall we, rather than just rubber stamping them without a critical glance?

    The first Keep proponent claims that Google News hits indicate the subject is notable. An examination of those hits, however, quote the subject about Ouija boards, and those sources are not at all about the subject. The GNG explicitly holds that sources must discuss the subject in "significant detail." Stories from the subject quoting his book cannot be used to support his own notability.

    The second Keep proponent claimed that "Author is notable in his field and with people interested in the subject matter," an interesting proposition for which he advanced not a shred of proof. If this is in fact the case, reliable sources should say so. Where are they, please? You cannot infer that a subject is notable in a field just because he has some publication credits; I have published just as many gaming books as he has Ouija-based publications, but I don't claim myself to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. The bar of WP:AUTHOR is set a great deal higher than that.

    The third Keep proponent claimed, again absent the slightest bit of evidence proffered by him, "I suspect that the subject of this article is one of the leading scholars in this field." He followed this up with a personal attack on the nom's motives, based on a userbox on the nom's page stating that he is an atheist, apparently inferring that atheists can have no motives for nominating occult-related articles for deletion save for spite.

    Could we have some discussion about the actual merits of the subject, please, rather than a heap of side issues or irrelevancies? Are there any reliable sources attesting to the subject's notability, as opposed to inferences that a claimed list of publications must mean the subject to whom they are ascribed is notable because, well, hrm, he just must be? (By the bye, I am neither an atheist, a Jehovah's Witness or a SPA. For what it's worth.) Ravenswing 06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Hullaballoo. A note, the article was completely vandalized with the deletion of most of its contents. I have restored some of the older sourced content. Yeah, makes sense. Delete most of the content then demand the article be erased. Good method, typical for this website, I'm sorry to say. Dwain (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not "completely vandalized", but had some content removed which removal was not disputed or changed for months. Further it was not done by me (the nominator). Your claim that I "Delete[d] most of the content then demand[ed] the article be erased" is absurd. Also, neither you nor Hullaballoo have shown any Wikipedia policy which would say why it is notable and you both have questioned the motive of the nominator. Such behavior does not prove anything. StandFirm (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Fair enough, Dwain; I just read over the current content. Tell me, what elements of WP:PROF do you believe are met?

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

From what I can see, none ... unless, perhaps, you have any reliable sources stating otherwise? In which case, why haven't they been posted? Ravenswing 04:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lichfield

[edit]
Tim Lichfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Grupo Latino de Radio. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Valor de Tu Dinero

[edit]
El Valor de Tu Dinero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 60 second segment of a radio show. The article is unsourced so is unverifiable by users. Obviously does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Prod was contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Fadlallah

[edit]
Abbas Fadlallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. There does not appear to be consensus as to whether playing for a futsal national team confers notability or not. However, Mr. Fadlallah has received no significant coverage by virtue of having played futsal for Lebanon. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Thorogood

[edit]
Simone Thorogood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formica Building

Formica Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable building. Zero hits on Google News, 3440 on internet. The building is not exceptional high or special. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why would a building built in 1970 turn up on Google News? Ghits on architecture subjects are not a useful guide. Sourcing for work of this era would all be in print. Works by notable architects like Harry Weese are normally considered notable; this work was executed when Weese was at the peak of his career. Covered in Architecture in Cincinnati, an unusual example of an urban shopping arcade, part of the context of Weese's urban design aesthetic. Acroterion (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a small but essential change in my rationale: The building is not exceptional high or special. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could see there was a museum located in the building. It could have created some stories about the building when it was moving out. The building could have been some remarkable architectural features or be involved in spectacular incidents. But no trace of that. As far as I can find the building is just doing what it is supposed to do: standing strong. Night of the Big Wind talk 15:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3 as hoax v/r - TP 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Thomas (television presenter)

Chuck Thomas (television presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. No evidence of notibility Dutyscenee (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a keep or delete right now - Some of the things he's done, like being part of the production team for US version of the X Factor and singing backing vocals on Tinie Tempah's single Wonderman, seem notable, but it's hard to tell without sources. If someone who likes adding references to Wikipedia articles (I don't) can find some reliable mentions of this man, then it's a keep. --Madison-chan (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
  • Delete - all of the things the article claims he has done seem to be fleeting appearances, loose connections or other non-notable events. There's nothing in there which mark him out as a notable individual. Moreover, I can find no sources which suggest that he is notable enough for an article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - I just did a quick Google search and found out that none of the things listed in the article are true. Speedy delete as a hoax article. (The man himself exists, but he has done none of the things mentioned in the article) --Madison-chan (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Yoest

Charmaine Yoest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yoest's notability is borderline. With just one independent source dedicated to Yoest's life outside of her position as leader of Americans United for Life, the biography fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep -- I am the editor who reinstated the article on the advice of another editor last week. I have a potential conflict with this topic, because I work for AUL, the organization Charmaine Yoest is president of, and I would like to see the article remain. Here are a few points I can make about why it should stay:
  • I have made some changes to the article, so it better complies with BLP policy and verifiability guidelines. I've added a source to verify the "Family" section, and several to verify "Affiliations". I've also removed the "Quote" section because it didn't seem very encyclopedic. And I've deleted the infobox because while there was once a photo, there isn't now.
  • More importantly, I believe notability can be demonstrated from other sources, and these should be included in the article. In addition to the in-depth Christian Science Monitor profile Binksternet has linked, there are other good sources:
  • Charmaine is identified as one of a handful of female leaders of the pro-life movement in a Washington Post article from November 3, 2011.
  • She was profiled in some depth in a long article in the National Catholic Register in October 2011. There are some good details here about her education and career.
  • Yoest is one of the key figures in a New Yorker article from November 14, 2011. Unfortunately only the abstract is online, but she is the subject of a standalone paragraph, which I'll quote here:
Yoest, who is warm and friendly and smart and a mother of five, has a Ph.D. in politics from the University of Virginia; her dissertation examined parental-leave policy and gender equity in the academy. Her first job out of college was in the Reagan White House. Then she worked for the Family Research Council. She serves on the executive committee of the Susan B. Anthony List. She was a senior adviser for Mike Huckabee's Presidential campaign.
  • It seems like this would be useful for filling out some details in the article as well. And she is also paired as the oppositional figure to the article's central figure, Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards:
Richards and Yoest are like Cold Warriors who came of age after the Cold War began.
  • Charmaine is also identified as a prominent critic of Planned Parenthood in a syndicated column by Kathryn Jean Lopez from November 7, 2011.
  • Perhaps less relevant to notability, but I'll also add that her work in opposition to Planned Parenthood has also earned her media appearances, such as this one on MSNBC early in October 2011.
As the leader of a national organization with a past and current role in important public policy matters, who has also received coverage from a wide number of publications, I think Charmaine Yoest should be considered notable. Another relevant matter is the recent deletion debate involving another pro-life female leader, Marjorie Dannenfelser. The result of the debate was to keep and I think, if anything, there are more indepedent reliable sources establishing Charmaine Yoest's notability. I hope the article will be kept so it can be improved. --ProLifeDC (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I decided to change my Comment to a Keep.ProLifeDC (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Christian Science Monitor profile cited by Binksternet is extensive and more than sufficient to establish notability. Article certainly needs improvement but the notability is there. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just so it is clear and lest anyone assume otherwise: I don't agree with Yoest's philosophy or agenda regarding abortion, but she is a reasonably influential activist so I feel she has some measure of notability. Quis separabit? 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Roscelese, I hope you'll reconsider your support for redirecting the article. If you'll read my note above, I have provided several other articles in addition to the Christian Science Monitor that focus on Charmaine Yoest, particularly the National Catholic Register, The New Yorker and The Washington Post. The first one is unquestionably an in-depth story about her leadership in the pro-life movement overall. The second is not primarily about her, but she receives considerable attention, and WP:GNG does say "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The third article contains less information, but it certainly recognizes her as a leader in the movement. It is not accurate to characterize these as "a few paragraphs elsewhere."
And while she is primarily notable for her work at AUL, this is not a case of an individual associated with an organization where the individual has received scant attention. To the contrary, she has clearly been singled out for coverage by major mainstream and religious news organizations, not just at AUL but in the larger movement. I hope you'll agree that these count toward her notability. Thanks, ProLifeDC (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Please use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for further discussion, since no consensus regarding the redirects was attained here. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chornomorets Stadium (1936)

Chornomorets Stadium (1936) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content was merged into the new stadium's article. BaboneCar (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to nominate for deletion related pages. Alex (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicknames are fine. Theatre of dreams goes to Old Trafford for example. Incorrect translation Stadion Tsentralnyi Chornomorets might be but you shouldn't assume everybody who uses Wikipedia knows how to translate Ukrainian properly (I sure don't) and if it is used on external websites it is a plausible search term. The same argument applies to Prokopenko Arena as does WP:V as verifiability is preferable to truth. You might know something to be untrue but if source say otherwise they win (not my rule and not one I think is perfect but it's the rule nonetheless. There are things about my hometown on here that I know to be false but they are sourced and our own personal knowledge is not a reliable source, no matter how true we know it to be). Redirects are cheap and unless they are completely ludicrous they should be left alone. Those backed up by outside sources fall into the left alone category. Keresaspa (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cradlewood

Cradlewood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film is in pre-production and has not had extensive coverage in media. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFF. PRODded by another editor, seconded by me; PROD removed by creating editor without discussion or other addressing of basis for the PROD. TJRC (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". Did this film ever start shooting last year? The sources seem out of date and do not back this up. So without evidence that the cameras rolled, clear case for deletion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate for a few weeks. I almost want to say keep, As it appears to be one of those allowable exceptions to NFF... as the film received extensive coverage during pre-production and production and actually seems to have completed post-production and is simply awaiting a release date. Considering the coverage, I do not see outright deletion as suitable, and in the incubator it will receive the benefit of collaborative editing until ready for a return. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see a reference to show that it ever went in to production. As filming was supposed to start 18 months ago, and as the official website is down, was production abandoned? This is why WP:NFF exists. This film could be in a state of limbo, so should not have been created until it is evidenced that production started. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why in point of fact that I did not opine a keep. We are not in disagreement that it does not belong in mainspace, nor that the completion of filming has not been confirmed in any RS. Incubation exists for the similar reasons as NFF... to remove something from mainspace that is premature, the difference being that it allows collaborative efforts nowiki'd and away-from-mainspace by those who may be inclined to do so. And if it is not improved, it will be deleted from the incubator in due course and without any fanfare whatsoever. I could find only non-RS rumors related to its completion, which was why I suggested it be removed from mainspace and placed temporarily in limbo until RS came forward. I would be just as fine with it being userfied back to its author, and for the same reasons. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy. I held off on voting until I had more information, but since this appears to be in development hell this should be deleted until something is shown to where the film is being made. I have no problems with Sk8erock userfying it until that point arrives, though. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Feel Good Chronicles

The Feel Good Chronicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unremarkable short film. No indications of notability, no coverage. Google search on "The Feel Good Chronicles" shows only 7 results, none reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kantara Initiative. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Assurance Framework

Identity Assurance Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion: promotional and notability issues. This page definitely leaves you guessing as to what it is about, but it is apparently some sort of proposed protocol or project involving online identities:

The Identity Assurance Framework (IAF) provides operational policies to assure Relying Parties, End-Users, Government Agencies and Industry Communities have confidence in a Federated Identity where an Identity Provider (IdP) issues credentials. The degree of confidence in Identity assurance is represented by a commonly agreed-upon "level of assurance." The IAF specifies the way IdPs have to run their services and how the IdPs are audited to ensure they are operating their services in conformance with their proclaimed level(s) of assurance and the stated terms of service.

Page seems to be a substantial copy of this paper, see especially starting at section 2, apparently a self published source by the outfit promoting this. Article would also appear to be part of a walled garden with a number of similar articles (Kantara Initiative, Federated Identity, Liberty Alliance likely more). A note on the talk page reveals conflict of interest: this page has been created by the people who are promoting this. This may or may not fix copyright issues, but does seem to underline that this is a promotional insertion.

Sources are all to internally published materials, self-published sources like Docbox copies of Power Point slides, 404 links, or pages that do not obviously mention this particular whatever-it-is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Kantara Initiative or Liberty Alliance. My bias as usual would be one well-sourced article about all three entities in plain English. But perhaps two articles on the initiative and alliance would be better than three. Each proposed document clearly does not merit a stand-alone encyclopedia article unless there are several independent sources. W Nowicki (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair suggestion, however, The Kantara Initiative and Liberty Alliance are two wholly separate legal entities. Also the Liberty Alliance is no longer operational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.100.19 (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a proposed protocol. It's a policy framework which is at the core of a trust framework certification program which has been adopted by the US government as part of the Obama Open Identit for Open Government Initiatove. It's adopted by the Federal Identity Access Management (FICAM) team and managed by the Feneral Services Administration. Also is relTed closely to the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). The domain of federated identity has changed much over the last 12 months and the article definitely needs a refresh. That said, this is implicated and evolving subject matter and I kindly request that we not delete the article because some people don't understand it. To expect that everyone can easily understand this topic easily is a very high bar to assume. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.100.19 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that writing style and neutrality issues are core concerns for me. I'd observe that your comment is much clearer than the article itself is. Your comment also suggests several possible merger and redirect targets, and that the named subject may be several layers of abstraction above where a readable and informative encyclopedia article would belong. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright violation from [13] mentioned above. The paper is distributed under a license which states that "No rights are granted to prepare derivative works of this Liberty Alliance Publication." making it unfree by Wikipedia's standards. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is not encyclopedic, it looks like it's just self-decriptive gobeldygook made further worthless by the amount of internal jargon used to "explain" things. I don't know if the topic should stay as an article, but if so, step one would be to delete all of the material and start over by writing explanatory sentences instead of copying gobeldygook and internal jargon. North8000 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Game (song)

Blame Game (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS. Did not chart and has very little information, which is taken from only 10 sources, 3 of which are unreliable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not enough information to warrant it being able to stay. There would need to be a lot more information, because it hasn't charted, for it to be able to stay. Calvin • TalkThatTalk 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. A lot of information could be merged into a section useful for the information of the music in the album's article. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:GNG and it is the criteria which i value the most. But again, why are only songs like this (which is indeed in a better shape) deleted when there exists BS (sorry for this) like this? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 03:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. According to WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I doubt this article will ever have enough sources to support an expansion. Orane (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seat Cushion Night

Seat Cushion Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable trivia. It's a giveaway that's been repeated, which has led to some coincidences that have gotten some press, but is overall not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the Cardinals and all, but I don't see how this article has any notable significance. At least the Rally Squirrel had a ridiculous amount of coverage, to the point the team was celebrating with a stuffed squirrel and some of the superstitious players and many fans credit the squirrel with the improbable world series win. This? It's just a promotion for seat cushions. Uh, no, I think I won't fight to keep this one. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Reliable sources have been added establishing the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline (2012 film)

Deadline (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film is not yet notable, as witnessed by a lack of coverage, per WP:NFILMS; a gnews search finds two mentions in reliable sources, a total of eight sentences. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the IMDB page for the film not qualify it for notability? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1430811/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathonarnold (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, an IMDB listing does not qualify a film as notable; it is a discouraged source, and its function as a database means that at best it shows that something exists, not that it's notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for right now - Non-notable indie flick, and like Nat Gertler said, just having an IMDB page doesn't establish notability. If it gets significant coverage in 2012, then an article will be made. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have located a few notable links for the film. More will, obviously, come in time:

Here are two press outlets discussing the unique premieres happening for this film: http://www.pulaskicitizen.com/news/Stories/110203FilmCrewMovesOnLocalsAwaitPremier.html http://www.apme.com/news/72796/

And a link from the Grievances book publisher on the filming of the movie: http://www.newsouthbooks.com/pages/2011/01/25/deadline-based-on-mark-ethridges-grievances-begins-filming/

I will add pertinent references to data on the page using these links. Will this qualify as notable?

--Jonathonarnold (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page from the publisher does not establish notability, as they are not an uninvolved party. The APME reference is a promotion for a showing that the APME is hosting, so again, not an uninvolved party. The Pulaski Citizen is a local paper for a town of under 8000 people; while it adds some amount to the notability, a small paper talking on a local topic is limited in its significance. --Nat Gertler (talk)
  • Comment to User:Jonathonarnold: Please read WP:Planned films. Per WP:NFF, and unless filming is imminent and there is persistant and in-depth coverage about the its production, films that have not commenced principle filming are usually not good candidates for separate articles. But even when principle filming is not imminent, policy does allow them to be spoken about in other articles (IE: the directors, production comnpany, or main stars) as long as the information is properly sourced and does not involve unsourced speculation or original research. That said, I will take a look and see if I can rewrite the thing to make it at least suitable for the incubator... a place where such articles can be collaboratively worked on away from mainspace. I'll report back.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This film has apparently not only commenced but has completed photography and has had individual screenings. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. My discovery as well. Looks like it just may meet WP:NF after all. Just a metter of adding sources... and it seems they ae available. The Tennessean: Nashville Gets Another Taste of Hollywood The Tennessean: Nashville Banker Bitten by the Film Bug The Tennessean: Rippavilla Turns on Charm for Role in Upcoming Movie Still working. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you all!--Jonathonarnold (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open PHACTS

Open PHACTS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Project that started earlier this year and will run for 3 years. As usual with this type of articles, it is long on promises and short on facts. It lists some notable people and organizations that are involved (but notability is not inherited. No independent sources as yet. May become notable in future, but at this point that is impossible to say. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the article to clarify some timelines, added a sentance to improve the lead-in to the article and added some references. I will add the Scientific Advisory Group listing this afternoon. ANy feedback welcomed--ChemConnector (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AGh...I already added it as I had not seen your comment. So I will remove it immediately. Please give me some direct examples of "notability" that you think might apply. Thanks --ChemConnector (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChemConnector discloses his identity on his userpage, and so being mentioned in the article, has a WP:COI Widefox (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG as currently lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Maybe it will have in future, but not at present. Qwfp (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that WP:GNG puts any project in an impossible position with regard to wikipedia coverage. If you have a poor opinion of historic projects and what they promise, why not give the project a year/18 months then judge it? In the scale of things (interest declared as a project participant), a €16M project between major pharma and academics in this area is a big deal which people actually want to find out about. I can't help questioning the sense of GNG when compared against some *incredibly* ephemeral pages on wikipedia which have extensive third-party references. List of video games in development? Rsc.kidd (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)— Rsc.kidd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I encourage you to nominate for deletion any pages you find of dubious notability. I note, however, that List of video games in development has a significant number of references... Stuartyeates (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article and a few related articles are riddled with WP:COI issues. I have asked the Rsc.kidd to disclose any COI with this and related topics as hinted by his username. Widefox (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC) The COI is confirmed. Widefox (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am getting more an more sad, that Wikipedians seem to live in a different century. Information about major current projects is relevant, is important to people. Not only after 10 years. Now. The notability guidelines seem to be written by historians, not scientists, or researchers. End of Rant... Vigilius (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically promotional article about a project that might at some future time become notable. We are not a source for information about "major current projects"; we're a source for information on them after they have become notable. We're an encyclopedia , not a news bulletin. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanmarie Simpson

Jeanmarie Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not pass the notability standards for actors or activists. At first glance the article has plenty of sources, but they are mostly blogs and websites. The one movie has not been released, and activism lacks secondary coverage by reliable sources SeaphotoTalk 17:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? - Her website seems to establish loads of notability. Dr. Joan Hoff, the Professor of History at Montana State University (who is most likely a notable person) said of her, "It is fitting that we honor Jeannette Rankin (1880-1973) today because she remains one of the most controversial and unique women in Montana and American political history. As the first woman ever elected to a legislative body in a western democracy; namely, the House of Representatives, and the only member of Congress to oppose U.S. entrance into both World Wars, Jeannette Rankin’s commitment to the cause of peace and equality grew steadily throughout her long life.", and she wrote an article called Why the West Leads the East in the Recognition of Women, in which she said (according to the site) "...that Montana in particular, and the West in general, created a unique physical environment-one we now associate with frontier or pioneer life- that had a profound impact on both women and men as they struggled to settle the land. Because they shared frontier burdens equally, Rankin thought that western men were likely to accept the idea of sexual equality and equal rights for women to a greater degree than their eastern counterparts." I don't know if someone's personal website is an establisher of notability, however. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
Comment - WP:SPS. Not a reliable source. Doesn't count. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, I guess - The only sources I could find are this and this. Sad that this woman has no coverage in reliable sources, because she sounds like an amazing person. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan [reply]

Please, please, please delete! There are millions of working activists much more notable than I. Please note that your reference above, by Dr. Joan Hoff (a wonderful woman whom I know) is about Jeannette Rankin, the subject of my play A Single Woman. Probably the play and the film of the same name should also be deleted. Too much acrimony is stirring and it serves neither me nor the peace movement, and it certainly doesn't further the message of universal compassion and understanding.Jeanmariesimpson (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll delete the article for you. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment - her one-woman play seems to have received a lot of coverage in the Reno and Sacramento areas, as indicated by most of these links. Perhaps her biography could be appended to an article on that work if that is the basis of notability. I am still not seeing notability that meet the guidelines for notability guidelines for actors, which is the strongest case; the arguments for general notability on the basis of her activism are weaker. Please remember this is not a referendum or value judgement on the subject of the article, just an evaluation of the article itself and it's merits for inclusion on Wikipedia. SeaphotoTalk 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Single Woman was not a one-woman play. It was a two-actor piece that played in venues all over the country, and there are articles to support that from newspapers in numerous regions. Additionally, her solo show, "Coming In Hot," received much notice in Tucson and also played in Hollywood, Seattle, Reno, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. There are articles to back that up as well. What is, in my opinion, significant, is that her theatre itself, since 9/11, is activism. I don't think she belongs in the notability guidelines for actors category. She is now "in progress" with a new work, as is reflected in the article, and it is, again, a work that confronts a pattern of societal ills. She is already gaining attention with that piece (you'll note that the Media Roots interview focused on that project). Maybe a new category needs creating? Anna Deavere Smith and others would fall into a category of theatre activism or art activism? That might actually be the one, because there are musicians, visual artists, dancers, poets, etc., all creating work in that vein.Webberkenny (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Here is a recent contribution by Simpson in a reputable online women's magazine. Seems to support your idea of a new category.Josiewarvelle (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more, with an audio from 2005, too. This is actually very interesting, and there is a ton of stuff out there about her theatre-as-activism approach.Josiewarvelle (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused too, and can't quite figure out how to create a new category. Josiewarvelle (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Navassa Island-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Let's go through this list: 30 pages listed, of which most (18) are about the United States or the Caribbean as a whole (e.g. Great Seal of the United States); of the rest: 3 are categories, 2 are inter-wiki links and 3 are redirects to Navassa Island. There are only 4 articles relating to Navassa Island (including Navassa Island itself). As the subject is an uninhabited rock in the ocean, there's virtually no possibility for expansion. In a previous nomination, the main argument seems to be that it's a political division, and therefore we should have indexes for all political entities. This doesn't seem logical from a practical sense. Nightw 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare Room: Scareful What You Wish For

The Nightmare Room: Scareful What You Wish For (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This episode of The Nightmare Room fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Popovic

Goran Popovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has only ever played in the non-fully pro Bosnian Premier League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megami Magazine

Megami Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable ecchi bishoujo magazine. Has only around 1,200 subscribers. Harly known in the anime fanbase outside Japan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madison-chan (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It is one of the better known Japanese magazines outside Japan and one of the most accessible thanks to the high number of pull out posters per issue (most I know get it purely for the pretty pictures). Along with NewType it is one of the only monthly Japanese anime-related magazines still available through Diamond Comic Distributors (see [15]) - a few years back you could also get Animage, Animaga, Animedia, G's Magazine... Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a SPA. I just want to delete articles. Geez, whatever happened to "don't bite the newcomers"? --Madison-chan (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Also, this magazine has not been significantly covered in reliable sources. The only sources I can find after doing a simple Google search are places selling the magazine like J-list. --Madison-chan (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

  • Withdraw nomination - Okay, seems pretty notable to me now. The article should be cleaned up and given some more info, though - like its impact on the Anime/Manga industry, reviews of the magazine in places like Mania.com or ANN.com, etc. --Madison-chan (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto "Cyborg" Abreu

Roberto "Cyborg" Abreu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like self promotion. Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article achieves notability due to the fact that Abreu is a competitive Jiu-Jitsu practitioner. He has competed and won some pretty big tournaments in his sport (like the ADCC, World Nogi, Brazilian Nationals, etc.) He has received press from many sports publications (GracieMag International, The ADCC organization, The Jiu-Jitsu Lab, etc.) Since I'm not Roberto Abreu, and don't have an American IP it should be pretty evident that this is not self promotion. This article is still a stub . . . so I'd appreciate help from any other Wikipedian's in expanding it. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I do not know if the Wiki is the place to post about every competitive brazilian jujitsu practioner. I understand the main people of the art to be notable, but not every single succesful fighter. I do think it would be unwise to have articles for every competitive practitioner of every art. Of course if he is notable enough: There is a list of notable brazilian jujitsu practioners on the Encyclopedia. It would be wise then to evaluate if he fits in that list. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning doesn't make much sense with regard to the way wikipedia treats other sports. Look at Toronto Argonauts players Matt Black (Canadian football), Wes Lysack, Willie Pile, Lin-J Shell, Dee Webb, Noel Prefontaine, Chad Rempel, and Grant Shaw. None of them have recorded as many awards or as much recognition in their sport as Abreu has in Jiu-Jitsu, yet each of them have a wiki page. The same can be said about New York Mets baseball players Mike Baxter (baseball),Zach Lutz,Rubén Tejada,Jordany Valdespin, and Fernando Martínez (baseball). It doesn't make sense that bench-warmers for team sports are given wiki articles uncontested, but world champions in martial arts are not considered notable enough.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Cyborg is huge in the world of grappling! He just won bronze at the 2011 ADCC which is currently one of the most prestigious grappling events in the world. He's one of the top super-heavyweight jiu-jitsoka currently competing. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Soap

Defense Soap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion of a product using Wikipedia. Crio de la Paz (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is notable for several reasons:
  • This soap has featured in articles from various sources not affiliated with it (NY Times, Sports Pro Media)
  • This soap is commonly used by martial arts practitioners and reviews of it are featured on several blogs (listed in the article)
  • This soap has achieved official recognition by a large martial arts organization (Team USA Judo).
The article is not worded like an advertisement, and I have no affiliation with the Defense soap company. The article is still a stub however, and I'd appreciate any editor's help in expanding it further. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I do not know if the product itself is notable enough. It does claim to be the official cleansing product of USA Judo. Is it encyclopedic? There are _tons_ of products in the market: I do not know which ones might be worth a space in the Encyclopedia.--Crio de la Paz (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theophilus A. Adisi

Theophilus A. Adisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any evidence that he played, other than transfermrkt, and after reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_47#Attention_User:Zombie433_the_cheater, I'm not sure which page came first. Happy to withdraw the nomination if notability can be proven. The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Doodle4Google. Any content worth merging can be found in the page history. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 00:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varsha Gupta

Varsha Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winning a prize makes a seven year old not notable for life. I even if the prize means hat the drawing is show on Google. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Wikipedia is to help web surfers all around the world with Reliable data. People will really search Internet to know about the girl. So i think this would help someone who doesn't know all these available details about her. Abdul raja (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Winning a Prize from Google in a competition all over India , that too since the winner is just 7 years Old - Its Notable. We can't ignore the winner's contribution as just an Art. Its notable because that Art makes the Google's Homepage Logo for 24hrs which is really an achievement i guess!!! Abdul raja (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - This little girl will most likely not be notable after this event. At the least it deserves a small mention on the Doodle4Google page. --Madison-chan (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

Merge - as above Jethwarp (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:BLP1E. Suraj T 11:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sector 32 Noida

Sector 32 Noida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event article, possibly also promotion. -Vaarsivius (And that's the art of the dress!~) 12:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Dylan Diamond

James Dylan Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a straight copy of [18] (free by CC-BY-SA) and doubles with [19]. Because this article resembles a fansite rather then giving bare information, it could be removed. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Bad Taste

A Bad Taste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The name given for the third book in a series by Pseudonymous Bosch is false. The name for that book is THIS BOOK IS NOT GOOD FOR YOU. That book already has an article and A Bad Taste should be a redirect. Fartherred (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Added link. Fartherred (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: If one searches the internet for ("A Bad Taste" and Pseudonymous Bosch) one gets "This Book Is Not Good for You" as at this !ndigo webpage. Confusion exists with people looking for "A Bad Taste" if only because it has been a Wikipedia article since March 2009. If it helps some people to have a redirect, there is no requirement to find evidence that "A Bad Taste" was originally planned as the title. Fartherred (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I corrected the reported search target. Fartherred (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State University Humans vs. Zombies

Oregon State University Humans vs. Zombies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just one college playing HvZ - nothing at all notable about it and it's not even mentioned in the main article on HvZ. The only references are from the campus newspaper and a local paper. andy (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a major, long standing part of campus culture that is covered in depth by three separate newspapers, with incidental coverage in several others. Many of the reasons cited for deletion are are for the most part specious,
    • "This is just one college playing HvZ". Well, you might say Oregon State Beavers football is just one university paying football.
    • "it's not even mentioned in the main article on HvZ". I don't understand why that matters. If all articles about an event of type X that were not mentioned in the article about X were to deleted, well that would be a massive under taking.
Meets WP:GNG. JORGENEV 10:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid not. Only three sources are cited. One of them, the university newspaper, can scarcely count as independent. Reference #5 is merely an events listing. Reference #6 is actually about the University of Washington and mentions OSU only in passing. This does not count as "Significant coverage" where "sources address the subject directly in detail" rather than "a trivial mention". Sorry, not even close to WP:GNG. andy (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG says that the phrase "independent of the subject" excludes "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases", which would in no way exclude the campus newspaper for being a reliable source on events that happen to take place on campus. You claim is akin to claiming that US newspapers don't qualify for notability of US things because they are not independent of the subject. JORGENEV 11:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place for all this information there. JORGENEV 12:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - but we don't need any of this information because it is not notable. Come on: this is just a bunch of college folk playing a game. The college is notable and the game is notable but the fact that this college plays this game is not per se notable unless it is proved to be. Presumably the college cheese society is also notable because they eat notable cheeses? andy (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Presumably not, you are right, because I am not aware of people being paid to write articles about the college cheese society in several different newspapers. And also probably because the cheese society does not have two thousand members. JORGENEV 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errr... would you mind listing these "multiple, independent, published sources"? I can only see three independent sources and only one of them provides "significant coverage". andy (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have already been provided and you have dismissed them spuriously, see my reasoning below. JORGENEV 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally I don't think the university newspaper is independent enough, but there are plenty of other sources. Papers in others states have covered this substantially. If there's ever an appropriate article to merge with, that's another discussion. In general, this is clearly notable and verifiable. Steven Walling • talk 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, what are these "plenty of other sources"? Which are the "papers in other states" that have given substantial coverage? HvZ is notable but what's so special about this particular campus? andy (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not particularly "special" as in I imagine their are many games like it, but the fact that they do not yet have articles is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is however however notable, as evinced so by reliable sources. Your contention that the university newspaper is not an independent source holds no water. They are clearly separate, the newspaper may not be independent of, say, the campus media, however saying that what is essentially a sports league and a media organization are 'affiliates' (wording of GNG) is not justifiable. I will give you that coverage in the campus newspaper is not a weighty as coverage in another newspaper as the campus newspaper tends to focus on that campus at a much higher resolution that other sources, however, the newspaper has published nine articles on the HvZ games over the past five years, I'd say that is probably worth two articles in a different newspaper? Then we have another full article in the city paper, a half article in a different city paper, a local television spot and passing mentions in out of state papers. That sounds like enough notability for me. The OSU games are qualitatively different that the parent, so a merge would mean loosing good information. This article deserves a spot. JORGENEV 11:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trimbakrao Bapurao Bhoite Inamdar

Trimbakrao Bapurao Bhoite Inamdar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not cite verifiable source. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. The article claims the he was Maharaja of Jalgaon State. This statement is incorrect and blatant hoax. The Jalgaon State article created by same person is already pending AfD. The article should be deleted if verifiable sources are not added and false claims like Maharaja are not removed immediately. The google search result is [20] zero. Few ref cited in the article do not mention the person's name. Jethwarp (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel this may be notable given more research by creator. However, I did a quick search on Google Books/Google even for Bhoite Sarkar, but only found a Bhoite Sarkar who probably is the great grandson. There may be more if one looks at non-digitized books, but for now, I'd say delete. Veryhuman (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zaka Public School

Zaka Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School (and locality) do not appear to exist. If it does exist, fails WP:GNG, as non-notable elementary school. (Schools are WP:A7 exempt, so sent to AfD in case it does exist.) Shirt58 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should have explained this more clearly in the nomination. There doesn't seem to be a place in Pakistan called Zaka; you can't have planned or under construction elementary school in a non-existent place.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dethcentrik

Dethcentrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

recreation of article deleted at afd (21 Aug 11) with only superficial changes. albums not on important label. band still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. inclusion on a Terrorizer's sampler cd is not significant coverage. of the other multitude of references they are either trivial coverage (like the mtv listing), are press releases or are not reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : While this article is not identical to the one deleted, it appears to suffer from the same problems. Basically though there are plenty of sources cited, it does not actually establish notability in the ways described at WP:MUSIC. It would appear from the references given that the band has received a lot of press coverage but most of the references are user submitted content, unremarkable blogs, or reprints of the band's own press releases. In general the references aren't what they seem to be. Take the ref ""Dethcentrik Video Banned By YouTube". MetalCrawler.net. 2011." for instance. No where in the linked review is any mention of YouTube. Some of them, such as the KBPI and Web of Metal contain no information related to the band. The Web of Metal page and the page linked on MetalCrawler are both nothing more than a link to the review on Metal Storm. There just isn't anything in the article to establish notability. The article and its references establish that the band probably does exist but that's not the criterion for inclusion. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I urge any closing admin to check every single source for themselves, and to also read the article thoroughly. I would like the closing administrator to please take into consideration the following: Two albums on a major label are one of WP:Music's potential requirements for notability, and two releases are available via IODA distribution, which is part of Sony Music Entertainment: link and the IODA has a long track record independent of simply being itself part of Sony Music. KBPI is a radio station, and airplay is another indicator of notability, while granted I might agree that not much information beyond a tracklisting, composer information, and information on what album the music is taken from is available on that particular site. WP:Music mentions "inclusion on a notable compilation album." So yes, inclusion on Terrorizer's CD is significant, not to mention the write-up on page 3. One of the authors on this deletion discussion tried to tag to page for speedy deletion as a re-post, despite notification from an administrator that is was not eligible. BusyWikipedian (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The albums were not released by IODA,they are only distributing it. KBPI is not national and there is no evidence of rotation. That sampler cd is not a notable compilation and the bands short blurb is not significant coverage by Terrorizer. As for your last lie, the editors opinion that it was not eligible for speedy came after the tagging. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Information intended for everyone notifies you as well, and despite explicitly being stated on the talk page that the article was ineligible for speedy deletion 6 days before you attempted speedy deletion, you tried anyway. I encourage any deleting admin to additionally check the article's Talk page, and to read all comments on this discussion by Duffbeerforme and discern for themselves whether any of the user's actions regarding this page are done in good faith. BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article meets GNG, by having coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Specifically, the inclusion in Terrorizer and Metal Storm (both notable enough for their own articles on WP. Some of the others may be reliable (while I'm aware that much metal coverage is online rather than in print articles, I'm not entirely certain which ones are certainly RS), and if they are (specifically The Gauntlet and Braingell) then that further establishes notability. I'm not entirely certain if IODA qualifies as a major record label, though if someone with more music knowledge than me says it is, then this also meets WP:BAND. Overall, I believe that this article contains just enough information in reliable sources to qualify the band as notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which do you think constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? Having a wikipedia article does not make a source reliable and does not make trivial listing significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, the coverage in Terrorizer and Metal Storm definitely count, and it's possible that the some of the other sources also count as reliable sources as well. I admit that this article is on the borderline, but I believe that there is just enough coverage to meet [[[WP:GNG]] and thus be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how an inclusion on a free sampler cd and the cd's track listing with a short band description (with no signs of it being written by Terrorizer) can be considered anything but trivial coverage. I also question the reliability of Metal Storm and do not call a cd review on such a webzine that wants everyone to send in their music for reviews to be significant coverage. I equate it with the local only type of coverage that is routinely dismissed at many afds. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states (to me) that it's not just that they were included in the sampler, but that they were discussed in an article in Terrorizer. If that isn't true (I don't have access to the source), then that is a problem, though not necessarily a fatal one. On Metal Storm...again, I'm coming at this without any knowledge of the field, and was relying on the fact that a review in a reliable source is generally considered to be a sign of notability (this is true not just for bands, but also for books, movies, etc). 07:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Terrorizer cd samplers are accompanied in the magazine by a page listing the bands and tracks on the cd with a short description. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They give the track number on the compilation, the track time, the record label, the release the song is taken from, and a short review. Dethcentrik's review for example reads:
"We love a new genre over at Terrorizer and black horrormetal sounded right up our street on paper. Until We heard it. This Colorado noise machine churn out sickening aural audacity that will make you ejaculate blood from all orifices, simultaneously. Actually that is right up our street."
And since the compilation itself is entitled Fear Candy and is regularly included with the magazine, I would qualify inclusion as both a third part article, and inclusion in a notable compilation. On a slightly related note, the band is on Pandora link to Dethcentrik on Pandora, iHeartRadio link to Dethcentrik on iHeartRadio, and Last.fm link to Dethcentrik on Last.fm. Of the three Pandora accepts the least music and Last.fm accepts the most music. That said, these stations are embedded in many newer radios, cars, and video game consoles. BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jalgaon State

Jalgaon State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy Delete Jalgaon was never a Princely state of India. the google search result gives [21] zero result. The creator has given 5 ref of which 2 are article of wiki page it self, 2 links do not work and one link which works mentions [22] clearly that Jalgaon was a Taluka directly under British rule. This article is a blatant hoax : G3 criteria of speedy delete. Futher, article it self says it was lost under The Ruler Bhoites lost their many such estates in current district of Jalgaon by The Bombay Personal Inams (Abolition) Act, 1952 on August 1, 1953. clearly indicating it was an Inam land or jagir and not a Princely State. Jethwarp (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I had nominated it first time few minutes back using twinkle but since there was some error did it again, as 1 nomination page was not created at all.Jethwarp (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - a surprise this one, a HOAX from India, but such it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted that entire history section because of the use of Wikipedia articles as primary sources and other reasons. Despite seeing a pattern in User:Starrahul's edits, I continue to AGF but his contributions need to be looked at closely for WP:POV, WP:PEACOCK, WP:OR, WP:Sources, etc. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Looks like the same user has brought the section back. Since I voluntarily stick to 1RR, I am not going to revert but I might tag the section/article. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All should note that Jalgaon was Princely Saranjam equivalent to Princely state. Many Marathi sources described it and i will dissolve all the queries regarding this.--Starrahul (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)--Starrahul (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Kulkarni

I have such records in Marathi books and in the Peshwa Daftar which was not readed yet can illuminate it. Firstly it is true that Jalgaon is Saranjam under British rule with aristocrat of this area being Political Saranjam Inamdar named Bhoite, a historical maratha family. Much evidence is that current jalgaon has a fortress known as bhoite gadhi. to check the records there is municipality having established in 1864 or so having presidents from Same maratha Clan. there is Bhoite nagar sub urban in the city. Marathi researchers of Khandesh pointed out that there is need to be studies of history records of families like Bhoite of Jalgaon, Kadam Bande, Pawar of bahal, Bargal of Taloda. So saranjams like gajendragad, non salute estate like phaltan can be termed as states or feudal states then why not jalgaon? I will made it clear that this article must sustain on wikipidia in short period being an originator. lets no t delete it and one thing others can ask is that turn the name of article to Jalgaon Saranjam besides deletin it.--Starrahul (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Dear Starrahul. Instead of putting your arguments in this debate. Do something to improve your article. Jalgaon was never a princely state. If it was a Saranjam then as stated above by you then admit your mistake and change the article with reliable on-line verifiable citation and notes. Remove titles like Maharaja - added by you - obviously for vanity purpose. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. And anyone who comes to see any wikipedia article, we wish he should find correct and verifiable information - not something like a HOAX you created. The title it self is a Hoax - misleading Jalgaon State. Now you are arguing that since Phaltan can have article of Phaltan State why not Jalgaon State - now see [23] there are so many verifiable books that confirm Phaltan as a Princely State. and none mention [24] Jalgaon as Princely State. If you want to salvage your article do something to rewrite it, change its name give verifiable citations.Jethwarp (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all claim the article to be a hoax. My reason for deletion is that the topic is not notable since there aren't the number of sources needed to determine notability (see WP:Notability). Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, dear Zuggernaut, I consider it to be HOAX. Other people opinion may vary from Hoax to Notability to Original Research. My reason for it being hoax is that it is not a Princely State. Also how r u supposed to find sources for anything that is hoax. As quiet well said by you notability and sources are also the issues. That is why I pointed to the creator that he should do complete re-write and change of name giving verifiable citations, as was I think earlier suggested by you also.Jethwarp (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Elwes (miser)

John Elwes (miser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate article of John Elwes. Contains no info that is not in the politician article. Lacking the refs and pictures of the politician article. Someone proposed a merge, but I could not really find any info that was not in the politician article already. Also, the miser article is just the text of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Elwes,_John_%28DNB00%29 taken without any changes. Marjaliisa (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article already exists in a better laid out format. I'd suggest that it be speedy deleted per A10, but this was made back in July and I'm not sure if that's too long ago for a speedy. 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 v/r - TP 16:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nature and Psychological wellbeing chapter overview transcript

Nature and Psychological wellbeing chapter overview transcript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. The content is a transcript of a video detailing some textbook chapter, but there is no assertion of notability of this particular textbook chapter. Furthermore, the author responded to the PROD with the following:

This page has been created for an assignment which requires a transcript to be available online. I need this to be available until december then it will be removed. Please leave it up until then and I will delete it once it has been marked. Thank you.

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a web host. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of brassiere designs. merge already done; nothing prevents expansion if there is found sufficient sourced material. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peephole bra

Peephole bra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per wp:nn. Link is to an image. Been marked for improvement since 2006 and as an orphan since 2009. No significant information available to add to this stub. Adequately covered in List of brassiere designs. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11 speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion by Discospinster. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Getter

Game Getter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article reads like an advertisement. Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 02:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior cats list of characters

Warrior cats list of characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already contained within List of Warriors characters and subpages. jheiv talk contribs 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlett Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts)

Bartlett Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail the GNG (unless this is actually something more than just a rock that gives it inherent notability). Yaksar (let's chat) 02:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that this is a navigation hazard. If so, it's a small island and likely the subject of significant commentary; for example, we might find accounts of ships that have hit it or of other uses, especially in local histories. I can't be sure about any of this, so I'm not going to say "keep", but this is clearly not just a random piece of stone. Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Bartlett Rock. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For pity's sake, I've sailed around there, and this is well to the left of insignificant. Certainly there are no reliable sources discussing the subject at all, never mind in "significant detail." It's not in the path of navigation at all - Green Harbor's channel tracks well to the south of it - and it's all of about 50 feet wide at low tide. A random piece of stone is exactly what I'd call it, and there's nothing about the article suggesting otherwise. Ravenswing 17:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Though there's been limited participation, I think thedecision is quite straightforward. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Westmont

Camp Westmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic seems generally non-notable, but that aside the article is replete with unverifiable content regarding living persons. Of particular concern is the apparent use of this page as an advertising venue, indicated by first person language ("We are all looking forward to having her with us this year and the following years to come") and an abundance of weasel words about how wonderful it is. bd2412 T 01:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Delete This article should be deleted for a few reasons - it is not notable, is not supported by reliable sources, and as noted above has both advertising and BLP issues. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devadas (Andrew Labrecque)

Devadas (Andrew Labrecque) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This musician appears -- as best I can tell -- to be non-notable by wp standards. The article has been tagged for notability for over a year and a half. Epeefleche (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable rivalry, the programs have only played 15 games in a span of roughly 50 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats what it is. Only the Penn State fans and Alabama fans know its a rivalry. Its a rivalry of Class. Its a rivalry of Respect. Bear Bryant and Joepa. Those 2 symbolize so much for each school. Before what has happened recently to joepa its been a clean rivalry. Not like a low down dirty in the trenches rivalry like LSU and Auburn for Alabama. None the less a rivalry for both Alabama and Penn State. -Commandoj251 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.153.121 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Canberra Gungahlin Cricket Club

North Canberra Gungahlin Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grade cricket club in the ACT. I'm unable to find anything in gnews that could come close to the significant coverage that's required to pass WP:GNG. The reason I've taken this to AfD instead of just PRODing is because an argument could be made that, as a grade cricket team, they technically meet WP:CRIN. However, my understanding is that the level of play and coverage for ACT grade cricket is far below that of the other Australian states – indeed, the ACT competition is not listed at the grade cricket article and there does not appear to be an article on the grade cricket competition in the ACT. Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad "Obama" Arif

Mohammad "Obama" Arif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. He was a candidate for governor of California, but (obviously) did not win. Most of the references given are either unreliable or simply list him as a candidate. There is one article from the local newspaper reporting that he's running for election, and an article from BBC Urdu reporting that he is Pakistani. (Also the nickname "Obama" doesn't appear in the article or any of the sources, so I don't know why it's in the title.) ... discospinster talk 04:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2010#Peace and Freedom as the only event for which he's remotely in the press. I fully agree with the nomination. While some sources, especially the BBC one (so far as I can translate it), mention him, there is not "significant coverage" sufficient to sustain a biography. WP:POLITICIAN says that redirecting a candidate's page to the election page is the appropriate outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a redirect. He was not a serious candidate. His participation in the election was trivial and his impact nonexistent. He was one of three candidates in the primary, running for the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party, one of California's four officially recognized minor parties. Any nobody can run in a primary - all it takes is a filing fee - so dozens and dozens of non-notable people typically register for any California primary. Arif was not the ultimate nominee for PFP; in fact, he placed third out of three would-be candidates, getting only 613 votes statewide [25]. That kind of showing does not deserve an article or even a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I agree with the comment above that the nickname "Obama" is unverified and should be removed from the title if the article is kept or redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a losing candidate in a primary even for a major party is not at all likely to be notable, much less for a minor party in the US. I agree with Melanie that even a redirect is not appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Dekaydence

The Chronicles of Dekaydence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book series. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If kept, should be redirected to and merged with Susie Cornfield. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything that suggests that this is a notable book series. Any ghits that came back linked to author/publisher sources or to blogs that wouldn't be considered reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete According to Worldcat,[1] Cornfield is not a notable author; and this book is not even listed there, while her two previous books in the series are in only 6 or 7 libraries each. WorldCat is not an esoteric database; it's as easy to use as google, and for things like this, it gives much more information. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creature Conflict: The Clan Wars

Creature Conflict: The Clan Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a game that has no reliable sources so is unverifiable by readers and doesn't demonstrate how the game is notable. Prod was contested on the grounds of the link to Moby Games entry, but this does not appear to meet the guidelines on reliable sources so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument isn't about conflict of interest on the article, its about whether there are sufficient reliable sources to allow readers to verify the content of the article and to show that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. None of the "sources" given so far seem to be reliable. If you want to show that Creature Conflict is notable, please supply independent, published sources that are significantly about the game. Sparthorse (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a video game, so "credible", not self-published gaming websites would be reliable sources. The coverage noted above seems to work. What do we expect, an article in The New York Times? This is a topic widely ignored by the mainstream media and academic publishers. For medical articles, we can usually have "hard" RS standards: books, magazines, etc that have a credible publisher and academic peer review. To demand the same here would blow most existing video game articles out of the water. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourcing is passable ([26]). JORGENEV 12:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory (band)

Morning Glory (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rewritten since the last AfD, but still apparently fails WP:BAND. If this is deleted the album and EP should go too.  —SMALLJIM  15:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Choking Victim, Leftover Crack, InDK, and Morning Glory are very well know in the NYC area especially the LES for their original blend of ska/punk/hardcore. Does wikipedia really only support pages for musicians that have won national awards/gold records/on national radio lists? that seems a bit ridiculous to me honestly. This band and their derivatives have a fairly wide following. I don't think this should be deleted based on the reasons given.Asphyxiate.always ☽☾Talk 00:27:54 November 2011 (PST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Begich (author)

Nick Begich (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable conspiracy theorist

Keep - In the span of seconds, lookee what I found. From the Anchorage Daily News, April 15, 1999:

If you've heard of Nick Begich, it could be because:

Now meet Nick Begich, School Board candidate.

His political career and being a part of a somewhat significant political family can be rather easily sourced. Of course, you didn't mention that. I really don't know what reliable sources exist for the conspiracy theory part. I do know that he has been a regular guest of both Art Bell and George Noory on Coast to Coast AM for well over fifteen years, so it's hardly like he crawled out from under a rug coincidental with the creation of the article.RadioKAOS (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of a somewhat significant political family does not confer notability in and of itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that not as an indication of notability, but because the first hit my search came up with, as quoted above, mentions it in pretty equal measure to his connection to HAARP. The only things I can see which may be construed as issues by any editors (certainly not myself) are: 1) If he's known primarily as a conspiracy theorist, the article should be narrowly focused on that and nothing else, now and forever; and 2) Alaskan-based sources are somehow considered "primary sources" in relation to Alaska-related articles. Addressing the first point, never mind that he's run for elected office at least three times that I'm aware of, the last two of those being high-profile campaigns in which he garnered a significant vote total (see here and here). I don't recall HAARP or any other conspiracy theories emerging as a campaign issue in any of these campaigns. Also, Political Graveyard didn't feel the need to omit mentioning him just because he hasn't actually been elected to any office, as evidenced here.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep—there are plenty of reliable sources for the conspiracy theory part. here are some books (note chronological span of interest in begich's work):
  1. Jerry E. Smith (June 1998). Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy. Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 33–. ISBN 978-0-932813-53-4. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
  2. Jerry E. Smith (December 2006). Weather Warfare. Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 163–. ISBN 978-1-931882-60-6. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
  3. Daniel Pinchbeck (14 October 2010). Notes from the Edge Times. Penguin. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-1-58542-837-3. Retrieved 30 October 2011.
there are also multiple reviews of begich's book on haarp in newspapers around the world, which you can see with this (sorry) paywalled search on newsbank on "nick begich"+haarp.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The 2007 consensus was Keep, but I think there is consensus that our standards are clearer now DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Porteous

Rochelle Porteous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP: POLITICIAN. this articles was curiously created by a single purpose editor few weeks before the 2007 state election where Porteous was unsuccessful. She is Mayor of Leichhardt council but that is a very small municipality in Sydney. Coverage is limited to mainly comments as a mayor in the media rather than coverage of her as an individual. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. [struck BLP violation] made a article as a vote winning ad, also [struck BLP violation] I mean creator has not been notified on there talk page. Ray-Rays 20:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I expected to see significant coverage, since it must be fairly unusual for a Green to be a mayor. But the coverage simply isn't there, and she fails WP:POLITICIAN. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POL not met. Is mayor of a municipal council, not the Sydney metropolitan council. Media coverage is not significant. The 1996 documentary "Rats in the ranks" made Leichhardt Council stand out for a while, but this does not confer notability on the current mayor.Colonel Tom 14:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Araby (Warhammer)

Araby (Warhammer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IMHO the subject of the article fails to fulfil the Notability requirements, and more specifically WP:NRVE. Another policy that also applies is WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook for a fictional setting). The subject is largely unimportant for the fictional setting itself, not being one of the major fictional political factions. The article's information is suspect because it simply lacks inline citations (since its creation in 2006) and to be honest I personal believe that some of it is simple fan speculation ("are said to"). The subject is already mentioned in a short and proper fashion in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The North, East, and South and that should be more than enough. This article is IMHO an example of simple WP:Fancruft. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are articles on every country in Warhammer. We should either have articles on all of them or none of them. Deleting odd articles here and there is inconsistent and not helpful to the project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some countries that are more important than others. The less important ones (i.e.:without a playable army in Warhammer Fantasy Battle) can be mentioned in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy and simply don't require their own articles. I also wish to point out that every article is a separate case. Flamarande (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. But inconsistency also does not look good. Also note that the Warhammer World is not used solely in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but also in the novels and in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Frankly, I'd be quite happy if all the articles were redirected to a larger article, but I don't think deleting some articles and not others is at all helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may always propose all articles for deletion (for consistency's sake). But some will argue that subject A or D is worthy/notable enough and will vote against the deletion of any article at all. I prefer to judge every article by itself and then propose the deletion of the worst ones (who fail in regard to specific Wiki-policies). I'm not arguing that you are wrong and that I'm right, I'm only pointing out that a long voyage may be done with single steps. Flamarande (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it no more inconsistent than that we have articles on some politically active persons on not on others, on some writers but not others, on some constructed languages (e.g. Esperanto) but not others. I agree with Flamarande – some countries can be more important than others in a fictional setting. It's not inconsistent to judge them indivually, it's prudent. I'd rather say that us being too categorical is not helpful for the project. /Julle (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of my concerns is the lack of inline citations: one of my concerns is that some parts of the article are IMHO plain OR (the parts "are said to" are IMHO simple fan-speculation). Flamarande (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. v/r - TP 02:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AsoP Romania

AsoP Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't speak Romanian, so it is possible I'm missing something, but I see no reliable, third-party coverage treating this association in detail. Contested prod. Neutralitytalk 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infestdead

Infestdead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. No significant improvement since AFD was started (and never closed) nearly 7 years ago. RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm doing a pretty thorough search and I'm not finding anything that would be considered a reliable source. Everything I find has been put out by the band or their publicists. As far as the previous nom arguments go, being sold on Amazon doesn't give you automatic notability and notability is not inherited. I think at most this would be a redirect to Dan Swanö with a brief mention on his article. It doesn't look like this band ever really made it big enough to become notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. The sources are sufficient in my opinion. Thanks to Megalaser for understanding the whole sources thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Life

Music of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims to be "influential" and "groundbreaking" in violation of WP:PEACOCK. Claims to have had a few hits, but I can't find anything on most of them — at least nothing tying to Music of Life. I couldn't find any sources anywhere for this label. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect may I please draw your attention to the Discogs page listing some of the releases, there have been many more: http://www.discogs.com/label/Music+Of+Life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Life was indeed the first ever record label in the United Kingdom to be dedicated to releasing hip-hop. The first hit record to enter the UK popular music charts was the Music of Life artist Derek B. Music of Life was the first label to sign only UK hip hop artists and actively promote their material, at the time in 1986 there were no other UK hip hop labels, many others followed hence the label was groundbreaking being the first and influential in that other labels followed the same business model. The information on the Wikipedia page is true and accurate, I would be happy to provide evidence to support this and ask that this page please not be deleted, it represents many years of work from the many people connected with the label. I apologize for the fact that I am no expert on the many rules of Wikipedia but as mentioned would be happy to provide whatever evidence is required to prove all information on the Music of Life page is true and accurate. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello,

I was a staff writer on the UK's longest running hip-hop magazine Hip-Hop Connection between 2000 and 2009, and also co-curated the exhibition Homegrown: The Story of UK Hip-Hop at Urbis in Manchester in 2009. If you like I can direct you to plenty of references in print dating back to 1987 that verify MoL's existence as an innovative and influential record label in UK hip-hop.

MoL produced a good proportion of what is now considered among the UK hip-hop community 'the canon' of UK rap between 1987 and 1991. They were the first label to release records by Hijack and Demon Boyz - the former group pioneering what later became known as the Britcore sound, the latter representing a key stage in the development of the British MC styles that drew on UK Caribbean dancehall techniques - this is an important part of a UK MC style lineage that went through jungle, drum 'n' bass, garage and grime and has ultimately resulted in many of the fast MC patterns that you can hear in the wave of British rappers that has now found pop chart success in the UK (eg Tinchy Stryder, Dizzee Rascal, etc). Both Hijack and the Demon Boyz featured prominently in the top 10 of Hip-Hop Connection's top 100 UK rap singles of all time and of their top 100 UK rap albums.

MoL was also very important in championing Ragga Hip-Hop (ie hip-hop rhythms with dancehall MCs, not rappers whose styles show a dancehall influence) with Asher D and Daddy Freddy. This was, to the best of my knowledge an unrecorded concept in 1987 when they released the single 'Ragamuffin Hip-Hop' - I have, I should add, explored the area in depth as a journalist, curator, academic and, most importantly, fan. 'Ragamuffin Hip-Hop' is considered an iconic record in UK hip-hop circles, was one of the first UK produced hip-hop records to make an impact on New York hip-hop clubs and radio, and I would consider it a key record in the development of the intermixture of reggae and hip-hop that has characterised much British dance music. As for Derek B, he was indeed originally employed by MoL on the A&R side, and his first records were released on the label before he was signed to Phonogram - in fact, there is a strong argument to be made that the label acted as something of a sorting house for major labels' interests in British rap and dance acts. MoL was additionally responsible for releasing many key underground UK rap records by acts such as Hardnoise, MC Duke, She Rockers and the Three Kights, many of which are held up as examples of excellence in late 80s UK rap.

In my opinion it would be a disservice to MoL's significant contribution to hip-hop and dance music in the UK if you were to delete their entry. For an idea of the scope of their involvement in the UK hip-hop scene during the 80s you should perhaps look at the labels section of Heroesofukhiphop.com which devotes a page to the releases on MoL - though there is no text on the label itself, it should give you an idea of the size of the label's contribution relative to other listed labels (http://heroesofukhiphop.com/MusicOfLife.htm) - I am not, I should add, in any way affiliated to that website. But as I say, I am happy to provide you with a list of music press references, so please email me at the address I registered with and I will do so.

Best wishes,

James McNally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcn74 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read the above? Music of Life is a beloved UK independent record label, the page is accurate and true and it is heartbreaking and a true violation to have to defend the label in this way, the first hip hop label in the UK, the first label to have any mainstream success with UK hip hop and a label that so many followed and emulated. I realize and admit that I am no expert in how Wikipedia works, the above is true and accurate, I am sorry that this is not acceptable to you. Thousands of fans would vote if we knew how in Wikepedia coding language of course they would want Music of Life to retain it's Wikipedia page if we could figure out how to say it so that it is understood. Please do not delete the Music of Life wikipedia page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It won't fly without reliable sources though. Are there any newspaper, magazine, etc. articles EXPLICITLY about Music of Life? That is, largely or entirely written about the label instead of a mere name-drop? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly get any more hurtful and disrespectful about this? You have obviously not reading or taking on board anything that we have been saying about the label. it started in 1986, before websites and the labels active period as 1986-1996, I have offered printed materials and had no response. You have responded to one of the references by saying that it's from a website limited to UK hip-hop, when in fact Music of Life was a UK hip-hop label, I know I am wasting my breath here and you are going to just delete the labels's Wikipedia page and Jethbot, thanks for voting to delete, your biog says you joined Wikipedia in 2006, Music of Life started in 1986, the first UK hip hop label, the first label to sign UK hip hop artists and for their music to enter the charts, the first label to license UK hip hop outside the UK and to major labels. None of this counts to you . . . . I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs)

Dude . . . . . very uncool. Your rudeness is quite frankly astonishing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a little bit of information, but it's still just a little bit. Little bits here and there won't add up. Also, Simon Harris + Music of Life gets a goose egg on Google News. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There's a little bit of sourcing available online, but it should not be surprising that a record label that had peak popularity in the late 1980s and early 1990s would have coverage not available through online searches. I find music writer James McNally's commentary (above) quite convincing, and thinks it's reasonable to believe him when he says there is print press about Music of Life (in other words, that the subject meets the general notability guideline). I can email him as he requested, and help gather the sources for the article. Meanwhile, we can see in online sources that there is an association with Derek B [27], the bits of coverage noted above, and some unknown amounts of coverage (found in Google, but without full text) in the magazine Blues & soul (1990), in Hip hop connection (2006), and in The Virgin encyclopedia of 80s music. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Evidence has been provided as to the factual significance of the label, it's a subjective opinion as to what amount of evidence is enough, but how much is ever enough? The fact that there is indeed evidence as to the existence of the label and it's position within it's own genre, the influence that it has had to the fans and competitors and the fact that there has been responses from known and respected individuals who offer evidence that the information on the label is truthful and accurate should underline that the information on the page is not false and does represent a historical description of the label and it's significance. One person may not be a fan of a particular style of music but the fact that it does not appeal to that persons taste should not be a reason to have it removed. Music of Life is a label that is hugely influential and important to a large community of hip hop and rap fans in the United Kingdom, the label started in 1986 and it's most active years were not those when information was published online, it's therefore unreasonable to expect that published online material would be available immediately by a simple Google search. Evidence as to the labels importance appears across a variety of formats.including 20 year old magazine articles, printed books, photographs, awards for sales, memberships of organizations such as the UK Performing Rights Society (PRS), Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) with royalties administered by BMI, ASCAP, with recorded interviews on the BBC and other respected broadcasters, in publications including Music Week, Smash Hits, Echoes and Hip Hop Connection (Europe's leading Hip Hop magazine). If this can be disproven then there could be grounds for the label to be removed from Wikipedia but I propose it should REMAIN on the grounds that the information can be provided that the information on this important, significant and influential label does in fact exist and is truthful.Megalaser (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 07:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Continually using promotional language such as "hugely influential" and "important to a large community of hip hop fans" is unhelpful when there appear to be no sources to back up those claims. The only sources provided so far have only shown that the label has published albums with several UK artists. The printed books listed above seem to only provide brief mentions of the label, photographs are not evidence for notability, there's been no assertion of sales awards from McNally above, memberships do not provide evidence of notability, and there has also been no evidence of BBC recorded interviews. It is not for us to disprove that these exist, but rather for people to provide proof that they do exist and that they provide content that goes beyond trivial mentions. Finally, the fact that label exists is not really in question here, but that certainly does not constitute an argument for keeping the article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentInfluential is a true fact not a promotional assertion because there is printed factual evidence that the label was the first and others did follow directly in it's footsteps. Important is also a true word because of the existence of the fans, the fact that other labels followed the same template shortly afterwards and the sales of the music that was released on the label. If the label was unimportant this would not have happened. Once again I am offering this evidence so if you would care to let me know where I can send it then I would be happy to. I have offered this several time and so have some of the other contributors and instead of contact information being provided the response has only been to be once again accused that no evidence exists. I have scanned printed materials, photographs and recordings of BBC news reports and interviews that back up the claims so please let me know how to contact you and where to send it. There appear to be no sources to back up the claims TO YOU because you are not interested in adequately researching yourself, looking in the right place or even accepting the evidence that we are willing to provide. You have already proposed deleting the label, there is no need to keep adding further insult to injury by directly accusing me of lying, you don't like the label or the music, I get it and so do the labels fans who are reading this and gaining further understanding of you from the content of this page. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Music of Life plays an important role in the German Wikipedia (!) articles about British hip-hop in general and britcore in particular. This role has never been doubted. In the former article Music of Life is even marked as a notable company. So an English article about Music of Life is nothing but an English translation of a German Wikipedia (!) article that is likely to be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.156.152 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I run a website called Heroes Of UK Hip Hop and to be honest, without Music Of Life, that website would not exist. The label itself, influenced so many people around the world to get involved in hip hop. Not only was Music Of Life responsible for introducing so many new artists to the UK hip hop scene, it was responsible for creating new genre's and styles around the hip hop movement. It reached far beyond the United Kingdom, with Ice T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_T) recognising it's status when he signed, the now legendary, 'Hijack' from Music Of Life to his 'Rhyme Syndicate Records' label around 1989 and Professor Griff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Griff) from Public Enemy getting his solo debut release 'It's A Rap Thing' on Music Of Life back in 1990, in fact, the B-Side 'Rap Terrorist' is actually on his 'Pawns In The Game' debut album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawns_in_the_Game). It also went beyond hip hop, releasing LaToya Jackson's 'Oops Oh No' single as early as 1986, which is featured on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oops,_Oh_No! To remove Music Of Life from Wikipedia would be a real shame, as it has played such an important part in music's history, I really do hope it is not removed as not only are you removing the label, you will be removing an important part of many artists career. Wikipedia is a very valuable and informative website and one of the only places where people can find out about subjects they hold close to their heart, like music, gaming, TV, films etc. and I know there are many people around the world that have fond memories of Music Of Life and would like to read about the information provided by this website. Wikipedia itself is proof of Music Of Life's legacy by the examples I have given and the amount of artists featured on here that were on the Music Of Life label, here is a link to the BBC website where Simon Harris (the founder of Music Of Life) is being interviewed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qnrd9 and for some more information on it's success visit here: http://www.musicindie.com/news/1111 Thank you for taking time to read this comment, Mr Webster.WebstaHeroes (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update – I initiated email correspondence with User:Megalaser, who sent me files of scans from some magazines that have written about the subject. I've added multiple references just now. I'd say the subject meets the general notability guideline. Note that Music Week devoted an entire special issue to Music of Life (August 27, 1988). Multiple sources back up the contention that this music label was innovative and influential, as one of the first UK hip hop labels. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yodayagya

Yodayagya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy as blatant hoax/vandalism. There appear to be no reliable sources documenting this name, meaning that it's not notable. It could be a hoax, or at least a neologism. It could also be an attack page of some sort since yodaya may be a derogatory term for Thailand (per Google news archive search results). Or it might be a content fork from Rohingya people (see the talk page comments). Needs more eyes on it, anyway.  —SMALLJIM  14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am a Burmese living in Thailand and familiar with the word Yodayagya. It is used between Burmese refugees when they are "joking" themselves after facing their severe conditions in Thailand. It is just a slang used by them. After the popularity of the word "Rohingya", they referred themselves as "Yodayagya"- (or the Rohingya of Thailand).

I do not think that it is an attack page for Thai people as "yodaya" is not a derogatory term of Thailand. If you ask all Burmese, they will say that "yodaya" is a normal colloquial word for "Thai/Thailand". It is an archaic word used for Thai/Thailand. Burmese call "Tayoke" for China, it is normal word like "Yodaya". The word "Kala" is an attack word for Indians- meaning dark-skinned people (However, originally "Kala" derived from "Kula", high and noble race, i.e, Indian).

However, the origin of the word "yodaya" is disputable. Burmese regime propaganda books said that "yodaya" derived from "ayudhaya" (the city that could not be conquered). the regime interpreted that ancient Burmese people deleted one word "a" from "ayudhaya"- making it "yudhaya" (which means- the city that could be conquered - possibly by the Burmese). But, it is just an interpretation of the Burmese military regime. That definition of the word "yodaya" only appeared while there was border tensions between Burma and Thailand. Normally, "yodaya" was used by all class of Burmese citizens just referring to the country of Thailand and Thai people. When they use "yodaya", there is no DEROGATORY sense at all.

I do not know this slang word "Yodayagya" , an imitation of "Rohingya" (which is created by Burmese refugees) has the right to be mentioned in wikipedia or not. Any way, according to a paragraph of the top box, I tried to fix a little bit about "Yodayagya" or Burmese migrant workers in Thailand. The human rights abuse on them such as not allowing them to drive motorbikes and to ride bicycles are ridiculous activities of Thai government.

Thank you Smalljim . (Zulumien) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulumien (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — Zulumien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Zulumien, that's useful information - I'm sure it will help us come to a decision. Since the article appears to be about Burmese migrant workers in Thailand, maybe if it can be properly referenced it could be moved to Burmese people in Thailand (similar to Burmese people in Japan and Burmese people in Pakistan), or failing that some content could be added to Burmese diaspora. —SMALLJIM  18:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Smalljim, If Burmese immigrants in Thailand need to be marked as "Burmese people in Thailand", then, why couldn't we change this article title to be "Bengali Immigrants in Myanmar"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.228 (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this, sorry. The difference is that there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm that the word rohingya is in common use.  —SMALLJIM  14:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It has already been redirected to the alternative name suggested. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities Students

Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The organisation does not exist. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The links you gave refer to the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities not Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities students. There is no organization with the students title as such. Please do not go on creating wiki pages based on nothing.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read through the linked articles, you will surely find the mention of this organization. --Soman (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Previous AfD was noconsensus; by now, consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Lost Generation (poem)

Lost Generation (poem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally nominated for deletion back in May and the discussion was closed as "no consensus". The "keep" votes mainly referred to the viral nature of the poem, but did not point to any reliable sources that verify this. The one article that was supplied is not about the poem/video, but only mentions it at the end as the basis for a recruitment video. I found another article with a similar mention, but again, it's not about the poem/video. A Google search about it brings up a lot of blogs and forum posts but nothing picked up by reliable sources about the poem itself. ... discospinster talk 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the rationale for deletion? I'm not hearing you state the reasons for deletion, here. –fudoreaper (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable. ... discospinster talk 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reluctant) Delete Last time the article was kept as no consensus based on a very passing mention in an RS, lots of YouTubeity, and source vaporware. What's changed? Millions of people may like it, but if we can't write about it except with lots of (extremely) unreliable sources and an ORfest, the article belongs somewhere else with lower standards. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable refs found. Search is tricky as there are many blogs, links to videos, and copies of the poem itself all over. Tried various searches to no effect, eg ("poetry review" "Lost Generation" "Jonathan Reed" -video) returns 1 issue of Spellbound, and nothing in there either. Fails Notability, Verifiability. This is odd as the poem has clearly attracted much cheeping and twittering. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Yau Ma Tei#Museums. The material is already in the article on the town, so a redirect seems the solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong International Hobby and Toy Museum

Hong Kong International Hobby and Toy Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews and google only reveals WP mirrors or directory listings which merely confirms its existence. Not all museums are notable either. LibStar (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Consensus seems clear; how much should be merged can be discussed on the talk p of the main article DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdoms of Ind

Kingdoms of Ind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My primary concern is the fact that this article lacks any sources whatsoever (since 2007). Furthermore the subject of the article fails to fulfil the Notability requirements, and more specifically WP:NRVE. Another policy that also applies is WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook for a fictional setting). The subject is largely unimportant for the fictional setting itself, not being one of the major fictional political factions. The subject is already mentioned in a short and proper fashion in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The North, East, and South and that should be more than enough. This article is IMHO an example of simple WP:Fancruft. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the spot the nom's found. There's no reason I can see a redirect shouldn't exist, and I do agree that tiny articles on NN fictional elements are best combined into big articles covering a bunch of elements. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Gossip Boy

Pinoy Gossip Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed by an IP without explanation. The PROD rationale still stands: while this website has been namedropped in multiple sources, it does not have the breadth of dedicated coverage to render it notable. The creator of the website had his article deleted at AfD, and it was recommended there that this be deleted as well. The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable third party sources to verify notability. The sources in the article only briefly mention the blog and don't really mention the blog itself as the subject of the article. PGB might gain notability one day, but it just isn't notable in the here and now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. the consensus seems clear enough DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Break

Cosmic Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess this Article is leaning towards Deletion. I would mind much being deleted though, but still please have it relisted for another week.--59.120.115.159 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. after relisting, the consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Fletcher

Phil Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is not notable. –Temporal User (Talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. In this case, it would mean that Phil Fletcher has received significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. The references now consist of his own website and Facebook page. Neither is an independent source and do not confer notability. The Facebook page should probably be removed from the article per WP:FACEBOOK. The Coram website just mentions Fletcher in passing, and contains no significant discussion of him, and is completely lacking in biographical details. It adds nothing. A bunch of Google hits doesn't make the case. So, I ask the two editors who recommended "strong keep" - where are the reliable sources that establish his notability? I with withdraw my recommendation to delete if high-quality sources providing significant coverage are added to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: relisting due to sockpuppetry/low participationBeeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete Fletcher does appear to be recognized as some kind of authority in puppet-making, as there is coverage of him as a judge on a puppet-judging contest run by The Puppet Project: [32] [33]. He has also been nominated for a Children's Award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) in the category of Presenter ([34], p.14). There's not really good coverage of him in the news (e.g. [35] and [36]; but I'm willing to overlook that in light of his nomination and evidence of him as an authority on puppets. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks to I, Jethrobot for taking the time to dig out the best sources on Phil Fletcher. I am not hostile toward Fletcher, and wish him every success. The issue here is whether these five references rise to the level of significant coverage. Here's how the General notability guideline defines it: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
The footnotes in the GNG give the following examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Martin Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a 1992 biography of Bill Clinton Tough love child of Kennedy published in The Guardian, which says "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." is plainly trivial.
Let's look at the five sources (3 through 7) identified by I, Jethrobot: Source 3 is a commercial blog for another puppetmaker who entered a contest. Source 4 is a contest information blog. Both mention Fletcher in passing as a judge of a non-notable puppet making competition. There is no detail whatsoever. Another judge is discussed in a bit more detail in source 3. Neither of these is a reliable source, and neither provides any detail about Fletcher. Both are trivial.
Source 5 is the nomination for the children's TV awards for BAFTA, which describes his comedy partner Iain Stirling's and his act: "Making entertainment out of links is a real skill. Iain and Hacker are funny, engaging and endlessly inventive". Two sentences for the two of them. Is that addressing the subject directly in detail? It mentions the character he plays, which he didn't create. By the way, they didn't win that clearly notable award. However, notability is surely not inherited by the losing nominees.
Source 6 mentions him in passing as a "BAFTA nominated puppeteer", which is not significant coverage, and is trivial.
Source 7 is significant coverage of his comedy partner, Iain Stirling, but not of Fletcher. Stirling is quoted as calling Fletcher "the funniest man I know after Daniel Kitson". That's it. An eight word quote by his partner is neither independent nor significant coverage. It's trivial.
I like puppeteers, especially the followers of Jim Henson, who I saw perform back in 1968 before he became a big star. However, I am forced by the evidence to conclude that this young puppermaker and puppeteer has not yet received the coverage needed to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. Right now, he's about as notable as Bill Clinton's high school band Three Blind Mice, which doesn't have a Wikipedia article. However, he may well gain more widespread attention as his career progresses, and if so, the article can be recreated at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ [37]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_November_14
No tags for this post.