Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 26#Abundance (programming language)

< 25 July	27 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was vacated. Malformed, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abundance (programming language) (3rd nomination) causa sui (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable references.

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, with no prejudice against speedy renomination — Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KRYPTON (Programming Language)

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

Delete fails WP:N entirely Preceding nomination was made by Flylanguage (talk · contribs) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a good conference paper already listed here that is also quite widely cited. Rather more than the nominator's Fly has. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator appears to be exhibiting WP:POINTY behavior related to his own page getting deleted. snaphat (talk) 12:32, 27 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan van der Horn (Grand Master Photographer)

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

This is a promotional page (with a ridiculous title) with only a self-published reference. Skandha101 • 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search indicates that this photographer is not notable. As for the grand title, I can't help but wonder if this guy takes photos of chess players. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are photographs by him or a namesake. -- Hoary (Grand Master Editor) (beseech) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage. On both Google and Yahoo, all I found was his linkedin and social networking webpages. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 29 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dog's Pog

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

No evidence that this programme exists. I found no reliable sources verifying it. Also nominating the article for the cartoon creator, as well the list of episodes and co-creator:

Contested prods. ... discospinster _talk 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, no assertion of notability, nothing came up when searching for anything with this title. The situation is the same with the article about Noah Hall as well. - Sudo Ghost 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the fundamental policy of verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that apparently Batman and CatDog are in episodes, yet there is no mention of this to be found online, leads me to believe this is a hoax. Batman doesn't just show up in anything, especially without someone online noticing and commenting. - Sudo Ghost 16:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Couldn't find any evidence this, or any of the pages created by this user, actually exist. MikeWazowski (talk)

We should also add List of Dog's Pog episodes and Edwin Antonsson for similar reasons. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Done, thanks. ... discospinster _talk 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. (And as non-notable if they were to exist.) By the way, in a quick check of the Swedish population register, I was unable to locate Messrs. Hall & Antonsson, corroborating the idea that all of the articles are hoax. Tomas e (talk) 09:14, 31 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of JumpStart products

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

This entire article seems to be nothing more than an unsourced product catalogue for a series of games Jac16888 ^Talk 22:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be real, but the notability surely isn't what's in the article. No sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:45, 26 July 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) 00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need this and a JumpStart series article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced, does not appear to be notable enough to be in its own article. - Sudo Ghost 14:37, 27 July 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. And I agree with User:I Jethrobot, particularly if Oprah had invented Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Edits!

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

Article about an online game with no indication of independent coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no sources supporting WP:WEB or general notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated comment In an alternate universe, this could have been the name for Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we're going to have articles for every flash game on the internet we have a lot of catching up to do. --Djohns21 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:58, 26 July 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) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found one source, but that's all. Not much of a game to have an article for. It's to simple to write anything about. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it. The game has thousands of registered players. It's more notable than you may think.173.73.9.230 (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline on notability is here. "Thousands of players" alone doesn't cut it. If an independent source has commented on that, then we're getting somewhere. Let us know. Marasmusine (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDY, WP:WEB, WP:GNG. I tried a Google search, and all I could find were promotional postings and game sites where you can play the game. What we need are reliable sources, independent of (i.e., unrelated to) the game itself, which talk about the game. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:34, 28 July 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 I am a stickler for WP:CORP, and this is a borderline case, but the issues raised in the nom are clearly those of editing not deletion, and furthermore, the arguments for delete failed to make a convincing case for deletion. The article is clearly a mess, but it does establish notability in the market niche in question. Cerejota (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Leading Hotels of the World

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

Nominating on behalf of User:Ivyleague100 who originally raised the matter at WP:DRV and I have referred it here. I am neutral. —S Marshall T/C 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify but keep, hopefully with better sourcing. I share the nominator's concern about the marketing tone of the article coupled with poor sourcing. I also suspect there are reasonable sources to be found on this organization - I couldn't find them with a quick google check myself, though someone with hospitality industry expertise might be able to. If that is the case, stubbing and removing the huge list of member properties, leaving just a for-instance reference to 3-4 member hotels that are notable in their own right, is likely a better solution than deletion. Martinp (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (amusingly sitting at a desk in one of the member hotels as I write this, and no the brochure on the bedside table is not a good source).[reply]
Update: This article in a refereed journal, behind a paywall for me, probably is sufficient to write a non marketing speak article on this entity. And given their scale and presence, they probably deserve an article - just rather different than what we have now. Martinp (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have altered the article by chopping off all the superfluous material. As I said in my edit summary, this article still needs work, but it is a real hotel chain, and I see no reason not to give it an article. --Djohns21 (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they're an actual hotel chain; I'm going to copy and paste the comment that Ivyleague100 made at DRV below.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider this a notable organization????? This company doesn't even own hotels and is not a hotel brand. It's only a marketing organization to which hotels subscribe and this page is simply an advertising exercise for a company that in its own Mission Statement (http://corp.lhw.com/default.aspx?page=94) claims to be "the most successful luxury hotel sales, marketing, and distribution company in the world." It doesn't offer any notable content. More importantly, by advertising in Wikipedia the hotels that subscribe to its services, this organization is very simply exploiting Wikipedia, its contributors and its readers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivyleague100 (talk • contribs)

Comment I think the article needs to clarify that the subject is a group, not a hotel chain, in a sense. It's a group of hotels that sign up to be promoted by this organization. The organization is still very notable, but it needs to be pointed out better in the article. Silver seren^C 06:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find satisfactory sources for this such as Tourism marketing: a collaborative approach. Warden (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 2nd paragraph of the above link confirms this is a marketing, advertising and public relations company. In October 2008 the Wikipedia article on this organization contained details concerning a marketing controversy - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Leading_Hotels_of_the_World&oldid=242426912 (2 October 2008) and in 2009 it contained several facts relating to Trademark proceedings and subsequent court rulings - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Leading_Hotels_of_the_World&oldid=296544849 (15 June 2009). The court rulings relating to this company are interesting, in particular the WIPO decision of 2002 http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0241.html. If this article is kept then these facts should not be omitted. If this organization were listed in any other encyclopedia, details concerning events in this organization's history would be included. Removing negative facts to present only the pretty side of the company's history is misleading and inaccurate. If the article is kept then it should be factual and accurate, otherwise it should be deleted. Ivyleague100 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sometimes an unfortuante assumption that organizations with a publicity-oriented name are inherently either non-notable, or that a publicity-free article cannot be written about them. Both are false, as the sources for this prove. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Neutral, independent sources have been supplied and shown. The question is not whether the article is currently advertorial, but whether a neutral article can be written from non-interested sources. The answer to the latter question seems to be yes, so the article can be salvaged. Except for copyvios, BLP violations and vandalism, articles should only be deleted if an article by that title on that topic should not exist, and this hotel organization is not non-notable. I think the idea behind the organization screamed "Promo!" to many; just a hunch. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the expectation that this debate will likely be closed as keep, I have added information - and the reference - from the book that Warden references above. I think we now have a decent slightly-better-than-stub article which is not overly promotional. I have not added the items referred to by Ivyleague100. Their were correctly removed from the article previously as being negative in tone and unreferenced. The 19.84 snafu does not appear to be notable - I have found no mentions of it since the event in question (so the dire warning about who knows what it might lead to appears to have been a false alarm) and a screwed up implementation of a marketing campaign several years ago does not seem worthy of mention - nor does a garden-variety dispute over possession of a web domain. Martinp (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In its current form, this is a short, neutral article about a notable business organization (founded in 1928!). I added a reference to its profile at Bloomberg Businessweek. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Ferris

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

This page was posted by an IP in August 2005 and has not been edited since. Subject fails WP:BIO with no coverage on Google, Google Books or Google Scholar, and page fails WP:RESUME. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like self promotion and fails WP:NOTE. -OberRanks (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, no indication of notability, looks like an autobiography. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a self-promotion essay or CV. Kierzek (talk) 14:15, 27 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oğuzhan Özyakup

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. Youth footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football yet. A lack of significant media coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when he turns out for a 1st team game for the Gunners, then he merits a page. Until then, unless he acquire media coverage that meets WP:GNG, he fails our notability requirements. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he is an obscure youth player who hasn't played for a professional team yet. Besides, it's a BLP containing no sourced material, possibly libel. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 21:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hossam El-Shazly

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

I declined a BLP Prod for this article because sources were added, but the sourcing appears to be very weak and not the sort of independent coverage that would establish notability. One is the subject's LinkedIn profile, another is a bare mention of him as being involved with an organization (among a lengthy list of others). The third is in Arabic, so I can't be sure, but it looks like a blog post. Initial searching produced news sources on a different individual of the same name (an Australian man killed in a cycling accident), but nothing about this subject. RL0919 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the subject's name in Arabic script: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable coverage. Under both names, I didn't find any notable mentions other than social networking webpages. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 28 July 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. Merge considerations can proceed through normal discussion and editing. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz

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

Wikipedia is not a list- EDIT: WP policy is that every member of a list article must meet notability criteria, which I do not believe is satisfied here ImperviusXR (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Given the notorious nature of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp, an index of personnel who served there and engaged in such activities is of extreme academic interest. Wikipedia also does allow for such lists in cases where the listing directly refers to a famous or infamous event; see "List of crew members on board RMS Titanic" for one such example. -OberRanks (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Confused as well about the initial nomination. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) clearly states lists are permitted on Wikipedia as long as they conform to certain guidelines. -OberRanks (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While this should obviously not detract from the above comment, I feel I should point out that OberRanks is the author of the proposed article. ImperviusXR (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I refer you to Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people, specifically the part where it says that every member of a list article should be in their own right notable enough to have their own article ImperviusXR (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would say that any person who served in the SS at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp is pretty notable. Even just being present in the camp as an SS member was grounds for a post war criminal investigation and prosecution. Also, everyone on the page right now could very easily have their own Wikipedia article and many in fact already do. -OberRanks (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Discussion unrelated to Article Deletion

I accept the points you make but I am still going to recommend Delete ImperviusXR (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - The applicable policy is under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, mainly: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I would recommend we remove this entire section or archive it in a read-only box. -OberRanks (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I dont think the nominator of the deletion vote is supposed to vote again in the body of the deletion vote - this is in a sense voting twice. You may want to consider modifying your above comment. I've asked for a Point of Order review since I don't know the rules here. -OberRanks (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD nominations are discussions, not votes ImperviusXR (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nevertheless, you nominated the article for deletion and then placed a second deletion comment within the discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If that is advised against I was not aware- could you show me where it says that this isn't reccomended in the wikipedia guidelines? ImperviusXR (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I asked for a Point of Order review on the main Deletion Talk Page to clarify the exact policy. -OberRanks (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator gives no valid reason for deletion. Lists are perfectly valid on Wikipedia as long as they are of valid subject matter. I think this would qualify, as many of the people on the list are notable and to omit the ones who aren't would provide an incomplete list, which would not improve Wikipedia in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My view was that this page is pretty much an exact reproduction of the source, and so it didn't seem as though bending the rules on notability would be warranted ImperviusXR (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As stated previously, anyone in the SS at Auschwitz, by virtue of simply being there, is notable. To quote the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials: "Any member of the SS assigned to Auschwitz, in whatever capacity great or small, is either directly or indirectly guilty of mass murder and genocide. There were no innocent SS men at Auschwitz, and they are all guilty of the same terrible crime" (Opening statement by Fritz Bauer, December 1963). Even to the present day, if a former SS member who served at Auschwitz comes forward, they are immediately subjected to media interest, books, interviews, and investigation into their background. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Auschwitz[reply]

Delete First, WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability is not inherited. Auschwitz is notable, a guard battalion sentry who served at Auschwitz is not. Second, the ones that are notable aren't really notable for serving at Auschwitz, but for being part of the Nuremberg Trialsand the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials. However, they are already listed there and do not need to be listed again. Finally, and this is a personal opinion, I don't think this is the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. It feels a bit to much like a directory. I would prefer the external link was simply provided as additional reading on the Auschwitz main page.--Djohns21 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think it bears mentioning that I plan to merge this article with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp. This will cause the sources to triple and for more information than just the list to be included. Also, the article is not simply a mirror of the external link. I have actually done some research and reorganized the names into better flowing sections and sub-sections, using the initial website as only a basic guide. -OberRanks (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first per WP:BURO, articles herein are not governed by statute. Here we have a detailed list that sets out the command structure and personnel for the infamous institution. It could not be covered in the length and detail given if merged into the main article, for example. It would help to expand the article with info. as to the roles of the groups listed in each section and given the fact the main author states above that he plans to merge it with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp is a good idea for general readers. Kierzek (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position isn't automatically "delete", but I'm quite concerned about this list. Including a name on this list creates the potential for very serious harm to a living person. If kept, the list would be one of our highest-risk areas of the encyclopaedia. If kept, it should be fully-protected to reduce the risk of vandalism, watchlisted by several experienced editors, and I want to see an inline citation to a reliable source for every single name that appears. Please also reassure me that all these people are safely dead; I don't want to see a single living name on the list even if it leaves the list incomplete.—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of contentious articles, even lists. I'd like to think that even if someone read, say, George Bush being added to the article in the 30 seconds it took to revert they'd realize it's vandalism. Being hard to maintain or in a POV battleground is no grounds for deletion, otherwise we'd have to delete many important articles, like Israel for example. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Fully protect but keep.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable list. This needs to be perfectly sourced, however, and it is essentially unsourced as it sits. It appears, at cursory glance, like it might be a content rip of the web site cited as an external link. Where does that leave us? Carrite (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The perception of a copy from an external website should disappear after this gets merged with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp. Actually might not have red link articles to SS people without articles either, based on a review of some of the comments here. -OberRanks (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Stop this waste of time. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a good example of a notable, well-defined list; having historical and encyclopedic value. We should keep the list complete, even if some of the individuals aren't independently notable. Them From Space 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; I would normally say a list like this should be merged and redirected as an embedded list in the parent article. However, given the article's size it should be kept separate as a sub-article. That being said; due to WP:NLIST and WP:NOTINHERITED I am unsure as to whether all subjects within the list deserve a wikilink per WP:REDLINK. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt that given that the content is from one source that would be linkable as a reference in the main article, there was no need to have a second one. It would still be the same number of clicks away from the Auschwitz article. I accept however that the content may have been edited into a more helpful format. ImperviusXR (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia doesn't need endless lists copied and pasted from other websites, particularly when the people named are not noteworthy --Fishistheice (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Pretty much established at this point that the article was not a "Cut and paste"" from another website and there are active plans to merge it with another article containing more sources. To be blunt, I'm also suspicious of an inactive account for nearly two years which is reactivated and the first edit it makes is to post a delete recommendation in a losing argument where most of the votes were to Keep. That strikes strongly of WP:MEAT, if not WP:SOCK. Apologies if I'm out of line. I just find that very strange. -OberRanks (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Followup, reporting the above user here. -OberRanks (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Given the notability of the main article and the current size of the article, as commented above, I would strongly consider it should be kept separate as a sub-article. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Enough of the officers have articles to justify the retention of the list. In so far as they do not and may be NN, the appropriate course would probably be to delink them. I consider that merging the list to the main article on the camp would unbalance it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 31 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equality Ride

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

Only a few third-party references, a quick Google search only shows a few refs from gay blogs. Article also has serious POV issues. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An extremely cursory Google News and Google Books search found plenty of news references that support notability. Referencing and tone issues can be corrected through normal editing, not through deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- that Google search was obviously _too_ quick. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/3731525.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187524,00.html, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635198751/Gathering-protests-Y-gay-policy.html, http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/6726921.html, http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29213, http://books.google.com/books?id=MkekTS4_k_sC&pg=PA8920&dq=%22Equality+Ride%22, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- improve article, per Roscelese/Sarek and previous AfD. AV3000 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soulforce. While the sources talk about ER, Soulforce is the main topic in the sources. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can do without the PC addition of Q to LGBT, but this is pretty clearly an encyclopedia-worthy topic, the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independent coverage. Here's AN ARTICLE FROM YES! MAGAZINE, for example. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Woolsey

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

This article is about a writer (amongst other things) that does not establish notability, nor does it have references to comply with the biography of living people policy. A Google news search shows his byline frequently. A Google book search shows he has authored a book (Vanderbilt University - College Prowler) that I cannot find any reviews of in reliable sources. There is a claim for publishing academic articles, but a Google Scholar search seems to indicate that he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Whpq (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per proposer. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only feeble cites on GS. Not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- We all get the same links to google searches at the top of this discussion page, don't we? The google book search shows that over a number of books cite Woolsey. Geo Swan (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, and even if there were, I don't see enough here to establish notability per WP:PEOPLE or WP:ACADEMIC. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Smith (footballer born 1991)

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

PROD removed by article creator with no reason given. This player never appeared for the senior teams of either Barnet or LA Galaxy - which not only means that claims in the article are false, but that the article fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he only appears to have played youth football, both at Barnet and at LA Galaxy, as the article claims, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and no independant significant coverage found. Footballer who hasn't made it yet. Infobox did imply 20 appearances for Galaxy which are probably U-20 appearances, but other than that claims do not appear false, except by implication.--ClubOranje^T 08:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth players. He has not made a senior appearance, let alone a professional one, and there no evidence of significant coverage. He therefore fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:44, 28 July 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Configuration Workgroup

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

The article fails to address WP:ORG or WP:CLUB and I find nothing in GNews or GBooks to indicate that notability might be addressed in the near future. Fæ (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is a claim of DRV on the article talk page that I have been unable to track down. Fæ (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks even one reliable independent secondary source WP:RS as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Google searching suggests they probably don't exist. The sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY (published by the subject organization) and are not useful in establishing notability. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this SAP user group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly OddParents (season 9)

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

Season 9 is not ordered yet. Ring2011 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional cats and other felines

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

This article meets multiple requirements for deletion, including limitless categories and content not suitable for Wikipedia. Djohns21 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I just realized this article has been nominated for deletion before, under the name List of fictional cats. This occurred back in early 2007 and the result was No Consensus. --Djohns21 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split. There are sources in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a group cats form one of the biggest and most recognizable types of animal in fiction and losing this list would be deeply unfortunate. It's in a poor state, somewhere along the line it has been allowed to go from "well, that's a bit over the top" to "well this is just silly", but that can be solved by trimming it and expanding the relevant entries with additional information. If it's trimmed down to cats which are major characters in major works then it will be fine and a good resource. Someoneanother 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I considered that. The problem with the idea that the article could be cleaned up is that the article is exactly what it is supposed to be; it is a list of every fictional cat, not just the noteworthy ones. As to the idea that there should be a list of noteworthy fictional cats, that is what the Category:Fictional cats is for. If a cat is noteworthy, it deserves its own page, which can then be added to the category. There are even sub-categories, such as Category:Cats in written fiction and Category:Films about cats. The only purpose I see then for this article is to collect a never ending list of insignificant cats. For example, "Mrs Figg's cats in Harry Potter" or my personal favorite, "Unnamed cat who gets a free sandwich in Miracle Whip commercials"--Djohns21 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categories are hammers, lists are electric drills. Unless a topic fits squarely and obviously within a category it doesn't work well, whereas lists can be filled with additional information which make them much more useful as search tools in broader areas like this. Many of the items on the list are embarassing, but it would be far more embarassing if there wasn't a list on WP where readers could find the answer to questions like "how often do cats appear as main characters in cartoons" or "are cats a major presence in fiction". With all broader lists like these it comes down to maintainence; once they're reined in and the structure is in place they're a lot easier to maintain and weak or irrelevant entries are a lot easier to spot. Someone another 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems incoherent and so there is no case to answer. In any case, the topic has great notability: see The Cat and the Human Imagination, for example. Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN, there's no reason we can't have a list and a category covering the same ground. This is an admittedly broad list... but if it were otherwise, it would be accused of being INDISCRIMINATE. No objection to trimming non-verifiable parts of this list, but I don't see it as an inherently problematic list topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use the article's talk page to discuss what standards to have for things on the list, and then remove those that don't belong. Dream Focus 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT, for a concise and distinct list to emerge. The open-ended criteria leads to a never-ending list. Most of the sublists contained here are also too broad in scope for an encyclopedic entry (cats in literature, cats on tv), or too trivial (cities named after cats, cat-like pokemon). Overall there isn't much here fit for an encyclopedia. This is a case where the category is appropriate, but the accompanying list is not. Them From Space 12:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this appears to be heading for a keep, the very least we could do to manage this is limit it to bluelink-only entries. In essence, applying our notability criteria to the entries. Them From Space 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains the weakness of such reasoning. For an example of an existing encyclopedia which covers the topic in a similar way, please see The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy. We are able to expand our coverage without the practical limits of such a volume because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content".
- WP:NOTPAPER also says this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, and WP:SALAT is the appropriate content policy for the scope of list articles. NOTPAPER would suffice if this was a very long, but discriminate and verifiable list; say 500 distinctive elements. But open-ended lists compiled in this manner have more problems than just their length. Them From Space 15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT says "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections.". This list is split into numerous sections and so we're good. Warden (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many other lists of this type(yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF, I know), and removing this one would be silly. I think it could be expanded to be more then a list dump of characters, but we can only wish. In that step of movement, I have added a source to the Pokemon section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hammer; he said it all. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, this article will require maintenance to make sure it doesn't collapse into a mess, but the concept of cats in works of fiction does seem to have sufficient coverage to be notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it needs a lot of pruning otherwise it'll descend into an unmaintainable mess, would be better as a category but meh. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Article now has over 30 citations. Cats and kittens are cute. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the cue for some WikiLove, right? Warden (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwwe... Gota love kittens. As this was sort of a reply to me, i wonder if I can commandeer the cuties for my user page? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Kitten}}, {{Kittynap}} and {{Kittens}}. Warden (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ta, ive been giving folk kittens since 2008, no one has given me one yet though :-( FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"><div style="float:left;margin:8px 18px 6px 10px;">[[File:Exclamation-orange.svg|15px]]</div> FeydHuxtable has kittynapped your [[kitten]]! The kitten made them happy and they'd like to give you an enormously massive hug for inadvertently donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br /> Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{tls|Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap a kitten with {{tls|Kittynap}} </div> </div>

Keep but severely trim: whilst the topic-list is reasonable, it has been allowed to grow into a ludicrous laundry-list. All cats, not posessing their own article, or equivalent demonstration of notability, should be removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:04, 31 July 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 keep. Nominator has agreed that it should be kept, and no other users have advocated deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon boy hoax

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

This article does not seem to meet notability requirements laid out in WP:EVENT, especially WP:EFFECT. "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." Ragettho (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This article needs work but it's well-sourced by verifiable, reliable secondary sources, and more than satisfies WP:GNG. The policy the nominator cites, WP:EVENTS, also states events that are "very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" are usually considered notable, and this event qualifies. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The event is surely notable because not only was the hoax covered and revealed internationally, but the following court case, and criticism of media coverage is even discussed and sourced in the current article, which fulfills WP:EFFECT:

...the incident "was a wake-up call to the media but it's a wake-up call that every single one of us is going to sleep through.
Thompson blamed technology rather than the media for the problem: "There are two technological phenomena driving this -- one is television satellite trucks and the ability to broadcast from anywhere and two is an unlimited number of platforms to place this stuff."

While we're at it, let's take a look at WP:EVENT (emphasis not added):

Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards

The event easily fulfills WP:GNG (with international attention from CNN, The Daily Telegraph (UK), The New Zealand Herald, The Glode and Mail (Canada), and The Age (Australia), among others. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article moved since its first AfD. The first AfD can be found here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn and I Jethrobot: I think the key words to consider here are "especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Most, if not all, of the article's sources were published in 2009. More importantly, the "Internet and media attention" and "Criticism of media coverage" sections do not cite case studies or similar works that imply continuing coverage. See WP:PERSISTENCE. Ragettho (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then here are more reliable sources covering the recent auction of the silver saucer, all 2011:

1, 2, 3

And here's one that discusses the hoax as an example of a trend that cannot be ignored by media from 2011:

1

And here's one on how the father begins his jail sentence in 2010:

1

There's more, but I don't think it is necessary to bring this AfD to an end. The coverage is persistent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of persistent coverage requires reliable sources. The Daily Maverick is ineligible in this case because "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." (WP:NEWSORG) Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 2009, it's still notable. — Hun ter Ka hn 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The participants in the 2009 debate were unable to reach a consensus on whether the event is notable. Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: To this day still notable and well sourced at that. -OberRanks (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that WP:EFFECT is only 1 of the 5 total factors that WP:EVENT recommends considering. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe it fails to satisfy any of the other factors? — Hun ter Ka hn 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst the article is quite badly done, the event was notable. It received coverage all over the world and the article has lots of reliable sources. Coolug (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Ragettho (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as being curt with you. Regardless of the amount of news coverage (which isn't always an accurate indicator of notability), I think that the balloon boy hoax has had no meaningful or significant impact on any aspect of our culture. Ragettho (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, but the fact that you don't "think" it had a meaningful impact sounds is a subjective opinion and sounds a bit like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The threshold for notability isn't whether it had a "meaningful or significant impact" on culture. It's outlined under WP:GNG: significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, secondary sources. Besides, the fact that this is still being talked about today (see here) seems indicative that there was an impact. This recent story from an Australian newspaper even cites it while discussing the dangerous extent people will go to become reality TV stars, which means the Balloon boy hoax is emblematic of something much bigger. — Hun ter Ka hn 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event and its sequelae were in the news for over 18 months, negating ONEEVENT. Since there are already copious reliable sources in the article, the burden of proof for deletion is on the nominator, and the nom's arguments come nowhere near to proving it must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This hoax is a notable event. In addition to the coverage at time of the incident, we have continued interest and coverage of it. [1], and [2] are just two examples which demonstrate continued interest and lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now see that there are sufficient reliable sources that point to the lasting impact of this event. TBH although I initially had some misgivings about the merits of this nomination, I'm still quite surprised by the overwhelming support for keeping the article, given that the participants of the previous debate could not reach a consensus. I had no idea that consensus could change so drastically! In any case, apologies for wasting your time. Ragettho (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is not just routine news coverage. Routine news coveage is forgotten in a week, whereas this was covered for 18 months. If the article in The Australian is to be believed, people are still talking about it today. This has follow-up, which WP:ONEEVENT events lack. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:03, 31 July 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. Sandstein 06:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deal or No Deal (United States) models

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

Overly detailed fancruft. Not a single source to be found, and I can't think of something that would source it. Way too much trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In 2007 this article could probably be tolerated. In 2011 when the show is long canceled and nobody except the fanboys who remember when a set bulb went out, then model 21 held suitcase 12 instead in episode S329F4 actually care to look up the names, it reads as an article that is just so long and dull that it really isn't needed anymore. Unsourced, unneeded and definitely leeching into TLDR territory. Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not temporary if this article was viable in 2007 it's viable forever. However whatever (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm trying to restrain myself from commenting on the type of person that would know this much detail about background eye candy in a game show, much less come here to write about it. Anyways...there are some interviews with individual models and such to be found online, but little that addresses the group of models as a whole, other than on NBC (primary source), blog-like entries, and ebaumsworld image galleries. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 April 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, Courcelles 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more discussion per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 17. Please close no earlier than 2 August. Courcelles 17:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination rationale is plainly defective, and based on clear factual errors. As was quite properly reaffirmed in the recent "Ravians" DRV, when we're dealing with a list-type article where the inclusion criterion isn't negative or otherwise contentious, it's OK for sourcing (for notable entries) to be included in the primary articles rather than the list article. And the nominator's statement that "I can't think of something that would source it" is without merit, particularly since a cursory Google search turns up this page [3] which together with its subpages verifies most of the basic information involved. Moreover, I spot-checked about half a dozen of the unlinked names (based on the copy mirrored here, and came up with GNews sources verifying every one of them. So the "no sourcing" argument, the only potentially valid reason for deletion, fails on its face. Some of such GNews hits which mentioned the TV show were quite recent, indicating that the show has embedded itself in popular culture and reinforcing the notability-is-not-temporary principle that should negate one of the delete !votes. The obsessively detailed trivia can be handled, as appropriate, by routine editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the argument by Aaron Brenneman on his talk page:

There's no debate that there are sources for the individual models that say that they did in fact appear on the show, but there are no sources about the topic of Deal-or-no-deal models treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in the "one event" sub-section of biographies of living persons. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:LISTPURP. However whatever (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deal or No Deal is clearly a notable gameshow, but I see nothing notable about this aspect of the game. The models' sole purpose is to open the briefcases, but at no point does the program focus on the person opening it; pretty much all the attention is given to the number revealed. A list of contestants would be more reasonable, since each show gives far more attention to the contestants than the people holding the briefcases. The only source in the article is to the gameshow's website, and while it provides reasonably in-depth interviews with each of the models, it is not an independent source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A list of contestants would probably not be viable under the WP:BLP1E rules. The models on the other hand are mostly recurring and most of them have their own Wikipedia articles. However whatever (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTPURP ("lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists") and WP:LISTN ("discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7]). TJRC (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Askmen, a photo gallery of topless ladies or an obviously fan-made page reliable? The Maxim article is a good addition, but it won't add itself. YOU add it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to be editing the article; I don't have a lot of interest in it. The DRV for this happened to be on the same page as another DRV that involved me, so I took note of it. I'm not making any commentary about article content here; I'm making comment about notability, which is the criterion for the AFD. Add the source, don't add the source, it's all the same to me. TJRC (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suppose arguments can be made about whether list should be limited to "notable" models or whatever, but its a useful notable list. The babes were the whole purpose of the show, I thought.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:08, 29 July 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 Vacated. Does not appear to be a good faith nomination causa sui (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boo (programming language)

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

Speedy delete clearly a toy project with no notable refences. The only reference is by the developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs)

Note - This AFD was malformed. There was no listing in the AFD list for July 26. I have added it. The AFD discussion did not have the standard AFD template material. I have added it in. Note that the nominator is the author of Fly (programming language) which is under consideration for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (programming language). -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yup, all programming language entries with no notable references should apparently be removed, so here goes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you google, there a many mentions of this language. The problem is simply that the article doesn't reference them. snaphat (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter, since there's not notable reference. Your keep is obviously Keep just because you have issues with me. - FlyLanguage
  - It does matter. Simply because the article doesn't reference things, doesn't make the subject not notable, just a poor article. I don't have issue with you, I actually voted weak-delete on another article you nominated for AfD. And, if you'd fix the malformed AFDs for the other stuff you nominated, I would score accordingly (as I agree with you in some of the cases). snaphat (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of our multitude of articles on minor and really non-notable languages, Boo is one of the few that does have some notice taken of it outside of its own developers.

I'd also note the WP:POINTY behaviour of the nominator here, just because their own pet project, Fly, looks likely to not survive an AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Not relevant. The Boo article doesn't meet notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 July 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, notwithstanding any issues specific to the nominator's conduct or good faith. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kite (programming language)

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

Delete Clearly a personal toy project - no notable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs)

Note - This AFD was malformed. There was no listing in the AFD list for July 26. I have added it. The AFD discussion did not have the standard AFD template material. I have added it in. Note that the nominator is the author of Fly (programming language) which is under consideration for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (programming language). -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I can't find any references other than mostly the author(s) page. However, it looks to be a little more than toy project (but not by much). snaphat (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:GNG. No proper sources, and I couldn't find any more in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. —Ruud 11:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator was exhibiting WP:POINTY behavior when the nomination occurred. And got banned for vandalism and personal attacks soon after. snaphat (talk) 16:59, 29 July 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. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaela Bahrey

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

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for actors. General notability guidelines are not met through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to it as I had her on my todo list. I also couldn't find any reliable sources. Definitely a case of WP:Too Soon for an actor. Bgwhite (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of other website mentions. She doesn't even have an official website, all I could find on both Google and Yahoo were IMDb, Yahoo! TV page, TV Guide, etc. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:NACTOR, WP:TOOSOON. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:52, 29 July 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 Vacated. Bad faith nomination by indefblocked user.. causa sui (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agena (programming language)

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

Speedy deletion No notable references, no info on web. Clearly just a personal hobbyist project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs)

Note - This AFD was malformed. It was made as a second nomination where there was no previous. I have moved it to its current location. There was no listing in the AFD list for July 26. I have added it. The AFD discussion did not have the standard AFD template material. I have added it in. Note that the nominator is the author of Fly (programming language) which is under consideration for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (programming language). -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Isn't notable per WP:N, because it lacks any independent sources. The only reference I can find that isn't by the authors page or related to the author is the following: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Agena . I personally don't think that counts as enough sources. The author also seems to have edited the page many times. snaphat (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The nominator does appears to be exhibiting WP:POINTY behavior. snaphat (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter, since it doesn't meet WP:N Flylanguage (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; cannot find any independent sources. -- 202.124.75.176 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 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. v/r - T P 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Host-based intrusion detection system

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

Article was brought to the attention of the content noticeboard. Article has been unsourced for awhile, in vio of WP:V. Phearson (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; maybe delete Other than the complete lack of sources (and a hint of essayishness), the content appears reasonable to me, at first glance. There's no shortage of easily googled sources in this field - I'm surprised this article hasn't been fixed already! Alas, digging around to find sources for somebody else's old text is not very time-efficient, and I don't have free time for a rewrite at the moment. If nobody else fixes the article during the course of this AfD I'm happy for it to be deleted - I'll write a nice, sourced replacement from scratch, later in July. bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some "citation needed" tags at least but it clearly is verifiable and thus meets WP:V DeVerm (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Until it does, it does not meet WP:V. I am hesitant to fix this because this particular part of the computing aspect is quite confusing, especially with the marketing terms people comeup with on a whim. Phearson (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I spend enough time editing on WP to not feel guilty nor compelled to jump onto this article to take charge of it too. But that doesn't mean this article isn't WP:N / WP:V because it is. Lacking references can be handled by editing, talk page discussion or even by slapping some tags onto it which are all better options than delete imho --DeVerm (talk) 12:34, 27 July 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, 19 July 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 - T P 15:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A solidly notable topic that deserves rescue rather than deletion. I've added a citation and a Rescue template. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Agreement with RJHall. However, whether or not "Keep" is a consensus agreement arising from the Delete debate or is an independent opinion isn't clear. (This may be a newbie remark since I'm unfamiliar with Delete "project page".)

Kernel.package (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: The Citizendium article is identical to this---is it common that they copy from here, or could this be a copyright violation on our part? Was too fast here, it is Citizendia, a Wikipedia mirror. Otherwise, notable topic, hundreds of scientific and white papers available, keep. --Pgallert (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is clearly notable. Click the Google news, Google books, or Google Scholar searches at the top of the AFD, and there are results, people talking about this. I'll see what I can add to the article. Remember to use WP:BEFORE to avoid wasting people's times with pointless deletion nominations. Dream Focus 06:03, 29 July 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 Vacated. Does not appear to be a good faith nomination causa sui (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance (programming language)

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

Speedy delete No notable references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs)

Note - This AFD was malformed. It was made as a second nomination where there was no previous. I have moved it to its current location. There was no listing in the AFD list for July 26. I have added it. The AFD discussion did not have the standard AFD template material. I have added it in. Note that the nominator is the author of Fly (programming language) which is under consideration for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (programming language). -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter since this article does in fact fail WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The nominator does appears to be exhibiting WP:POINTY behavior. snaphat (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough- Referenced in Byte magazine and used by NASA in some of their software. snaphat (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Reed

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

Reed doesn't meet notability guidelines for college athletes as he's never won any national college football awards or set any NCAA Division I records but has set records at San Jose State, according to his official biography. Furthermore, Reed lacks national media coverage for his athletic career but has had local media coverage [8] [9] [10] [11] Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep college players certainly can be notable, but this one does not appear to have the coverage that we normally look for to establish such notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like plenty of coverage in mainstream media, and not just passing references in game coverage. He was a starting QB at a Division I FBS program. Holds the San Jose State single-game record for completion percent in a game (88.5%) at Stanford (9/20/08). There are a large number of articles with Reed as the subject. Examples include: (1) San Jose State Spartans quarterback Kyle Reed finally gets chance to play, Las Cruces Sun-News, October 18, 2008; (2) , After transfer, injury and playing on third team, Reed gave Spartans a spark, Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska), September 5, 2008; (3)' QB Reed 'just got his bell rung' Tomey says, Oakland Tribune, September 8, 2008 ; (4) Cal reserve QB Reed transfers to San Jose State, San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 2007; (5) Reed worth the wait, San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2008; (6) SPARTANS' REED HAS A TALL ORDER, San Jose Mercury News, September 6, 2008; (7) REED BACK AT QB AFTER EDEN STRUGGLES, San Jose Mercury News, November 9, 2008; (8) Former Cal quarterback Reed lands on his feet at San Jose State, Oakland Tribune, Sep 4, 2008; (9) Future seems forever in the future for Reed, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 19, 2007; (10) REED MAY GIVE SPARTANS BEST SHOT AT QB, San Jose Mercury News, November 24, 2009; (11) SJSU's Reed injured, says he'll be ready for Fresno State game, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 15, 2008; (12) Reed is back at quarterback for SJSU, San Jose Mercury News, November 10, 2008; (13) SJSU coach expresses confidence in QB Reed, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, October 20, 2008; (14) San Jose State quarterback Reed stays on target with his passing, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 21, 2008; (15) REED RETURNS IN A BIG WAY, LEADS SJSU TO EASY VICTORY, San Jose Mercury News, September 14, 2008; (16) San Jose State quarterback Reed has a tall order, San Jose Mercury News, September 6, 2008; (16) Spartans take Reed option, Nebraska City News-Press (NE), September 4, 2008; (17) In sequel, QB to start Junior Kyle Reed starred in the Spartans' come-from-behind win last week, Omaha World-Herald, September 4, 2008; (18) Quarterback Reed opts to leave Cal, Former McClymonds High star will transfer to San Jose State after losing out on the top backup job, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, August 30, 2007; (19) Cal football QB Reed's injury motivates him to get back on the field, Daily Californian, April 11, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This probably applies to a larger group of articles as well: If a subject does not meet any of the notability guidelines, but appears to pass WP:GNG, are they still notable? As a starting quarterback for a Division I FBS program, it is extremely rare if that player does not meet GNG. However, being a starting quarterback is not an automatic inclusion criteria. To put it simply, if a subject is truly notable, they will meet GNG and at least one other notability guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, and the consensus has been that if a person passes "GNG," that's good enough. For this reason, a college player who never plays pro ball can still be the subject of an article. And you are correct, a starting QB at a Division I FBS program will most likely pass GNG. Whether rightly or wrongly, starting QBs get far more press coverage than any other position player. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word that there is a consensus for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no consensus. It is split about 50/50. Cbl62 argues in favor and I have been on the other side. A story today in my local paper talked about a junior high school QB and his experience at some camp. The player has verbally committed to a local University. Another article last week talked about a freshman wide receiver that red shirted last year. So, using CB162 criteria, every starter for the University I'm a fan of is notable and even the major recruits are too. But, as there is no consensus, tie goes to the runner. Bgwhite (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. Only a small percentage of college football players get enough non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets to pass GNG. For example, 99% of college linemen don't get the type of coverage to satisfy GNG. Starting QBs on Division I FBS teams do generally get a lot of media coverage, and this is the case with Reed. But even starting QBs sometimes don't garner enough non-trivial coverage. For an example of a college QB who does not satisfy WP:GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Holland. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have these discussions taken place? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous AfDs on sports people. Usually college football and basketball players.Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Aponavicius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cox (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemalle Cornelius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooter Berry (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obi Egekeze. Also, the sports guideline begins with the following statement: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Thus, the policy itself makes clear that passing GNG is enough even if the sports standard is not met. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 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) 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that Cbl62 has presented above which clearly demonstrate that Reed passes the general notability guideline. The SNGs, of which WP:NSPORTS is one, are supplementary guidelines and should generally be used as indicators for whether the subject will meet the GNG. While it is fine to disagree about whether the subject meets GNG, it is ridiculous to argue that someone meets GNG but fails NSPORTS and should therefore be deleted when the lead of NSPORTS contains "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson ... will meet the general notability guideline" and "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORT for college athletes, and never played at highest level professionally. Source from The Daily Californian is a school newspaper and not an independent source as required by WP:GNG. WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", but the sources are from MediaNews Group which syndicate each others articles (San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, Las Cruces Sun-News). A lot of the sources listed were available subscription only, so cited results from WP:GOOGLEHITS does not weed out articles that might be WP:ROUTINE coverage even though the limited headline and excerpt seems promising. I personally can't verify it. This player generated some news because he decided to transfer schools within the Bay Area and happens to be a quarterback who played against Nebraska, so "keep" proponents can have a field day citing sources from the state of Nebraska. But WP is WP:NOTNEWS. I'm at a loss as to what would ever be "interesting or notable" in even the most polished lead section for this article. Perhaps someone can provide some talking points to change my mind on why this person should not be considered WP:Run-of-the-mill and is deserving of an article. —Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points in response:

(1) Common ownership of media outlets does not make them the same source. The Media News Group owns dozens of newspapers across the country, but that doesn't make all of those newspapers one source. Likewise, the New Mexico newspaper appears to be owned by Gannett, which also owns dozens of media outlets. They are still separate sources under WP:GNG. If your position were accepted, coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The Times (London), The New York Post, Sky TV, and Fox News Channel would not satisfy GNG because these outlets are all owned by News Corporation. That's never been the interpretation.

(2) You acknowledge that much of the coverage "seems promising" based on the headlines, but note that you can't weed out coverage that "might be" WP:ROUTINE because they are subscription sources. That's not a valid basis for concluding that the sources are routine. Indeed, you acknowledge that you don't know. In cases of uncertainty, the default should be to "Keep" not "Delete."

(3) Your reliance on WP:NOTNEWS is not well taken. This applies to whether or not a one-time news story should have a Wikipedia article. In this case, we have an athlete who has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources for an extended time. Newspaper stories are an established and valid way of establishing a person's notability.

(4) You say that you can't image what would be "interesting or notable" about this person. That's applying a subjective standard. What's interesting to me might not be interesting to you and vice versa. But that's not the test. We have an objective way of measuring notability from non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets, and Reed passes that test. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re {1)Common ownership: Your personal interpretation aside, this is taken verbatim from GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The sharing of content is clearly evident in reading their newspapers and seeing the same writes, and is clearly articulated in their mission statement of "integrating our content for dissemination across all available distribution platforms in our markets, beginning with the local newspaper".

re: (2) Availability of sources: While articles can be developed in user page to avoid scrutiny of notability while sources are still being found, the article incubator is the other option when "the material did not meet our inclusion criteria, there was justifiable reason to believe the material/article could be made to meet the inclusion criteria given enough time." These articles should not be in the mainspace.

re: (3) Not news: WP:NRVE says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". "short-term interest" was liked to WP:NOTNEWS. Reed's main coverage is for two isolated events of short-term interest: transferring schools and famous in Nebraska for being a quarterback on an opponents teams.

re: (4) Subjective: WP:GNG clearly allows this: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." There are also those who advocate WP:COMMONSENSE which is of source subject to consensus and can only reached by discussing what each of us individually subjectively consider notable. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. The news coverage is of the routine nature that college footballers pick up and doesn't serve to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSPORT. Sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Article seems to be created to fill a redlink on this template. A low bar for inclusion indeed. Of that list, only Deberg and Garcia meet the WP:NSPORT criteria, IMHO, though others might differ. Several of those pages are BLP offenders and should face deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: After closing there was an inquiry on my talk page, and I took the close to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_25#Kyle_Reed. I'm satisfied that there is clear consensus there, so I'm re-opening and re-listing. Gusto!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for relisting. In my opinion, the article is not well-written currently, and I'll do some work on improving it over the next couple days, but I think article should be kept for at least three reasons:

(1) Reed has been the subject of dozens of articles written about him (i.e., he was the subject of the coverage rather than it being passing references in game coverage) in multiple major newspapers like the San Jose Mercury News (the 5th largest U.S. newspaper), San Francisco Chronicle (23rd largest U.S. newspaper), Oakland Tribune, as well as newspapers in New Mexico and Nebraska. This seems like more than plenty to meet WP:GNG. Passing reference in game coverage is routine, but this guy has multiple stories in newspapers across the country written about him in particular. That's not routine. I edit regularly on college football, and the percentage of college football players who receive this depth and breadth of coverage is extremely small -- less than 1%.

(2) Although passing WP:GNG suffices, he likely passes WP:NSPORTS as well. WP:NSPORTS says: "College athletes ... are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include ... players who ... Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Here, Reed has been the subject of such non-trivial media coverage, including coverage on a national basis. It's anything but routine for an athlete from San Jose to receive feature coverage in newspapers as far away as New Mexico and Nebraska.

(3) Starting quarterbacks for Division I FBS (the highest level of college football) almost always pass WP:GNG. QBs are team leaders, and QBs on FBS teams receive a lot of media attention. It's for that reason that the College Football Project allows templates for FBS team QBs. Such templates are not permitted for any other position in college football. This is because a consensus has developed at the College Football Project that starting QBs on FBS teams are almost always notable. That's no reason to panic and think there's a move to saying every college football player is notable. Far from it. There are 25 positions on a college football team and 3 players at each position, meaning 1 starting quarterback on a team of about 75 players. Further, only a small percentage of college teams compete in the highest FBS level. So we're talking about a tiny percentage (actually a fraction of 1% of college football players) who are starting QBs for FBS teams. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re (1): Newspapers under MediaNews umbrella are considered one source per GNG (per discussion above)

re (2): New Mexico and Nebraska coverage is routine when you consider it's only pregame coverage about opposing team's run-of-the-mill quarterback before 2008 games against opponents Nebraska (Spetember 6) and New Mexico (October 18). These dates coincide with the "national" coverage alluded to.

re (3): Agree with Cbl62 that Div I quarterback "almost always" pass WP:GNG, but that is a red herring. This cannot sway discussion on Reed, who must be discussed and qualify on his own merits. There is no previous consensus in WP:NSPORTS to automatically presume notability for all Div I quarterbacks. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSPORT and sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage about him transferring from Cal and routine game articles. Bgwhite (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for meeting neither WP:NSPORT nor WP:GNG. I agree with others that the coverage is routine. Even if consensus were to be undecided if the coverage is significant, common sense needs to prevail and guidelines should not be merely followed if it does not improve Wikipedia. Instead of blindly counting the number of significant sources, look at what the sources say. They say he is only famous for transferring schools and little else, which is not notable. Norespectasip (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant space

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

Non-notable organization. References provided consist of press releases and mentions in passing. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The referencing in the article is either not a reliable source, or in the case of the Irish Time, a brief mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 29 July 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.

Anti-Islam

The result was to REDIRECT to Islamophobia (admins are welcome to correct or reopen). ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although labelled as such, this is not a disambiguation page. It appears to be a forum for PoV pushing, serving no useful purpose. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete: I suggest a redirect to Islamophobia, 1) to avoid recreation 2) Ani- is used in the article's definition section. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Oppose/Neutral~~ - I and another user, (User: PassaMethod) resolved the neutrality issue, however I agree it should be redirected to Islamophobia if this passes. We came at a consensus on the meaning of some words. Its still a disambiguation page now that some words and phrases have been added or taken away. I don't think its entirely necessary to delete it. I'm still more open to other opinions. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm changing my mind somewhat on this issue. Maybe it does need redirection to Islamophobia since the majority of those who say they are "Anti-Islam" are very right wing racists or fascists as has been labelled in several sources I can think up. Being Anti-Muslim, or Anti-Islamic is akin to Anti-Semitism but this has nothing to do with criticism of Judaism per se. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't we close this discussion since consensus has been met? I think a redirection is what everyone proposes. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia. It's kind of a weird page because there is no noun in the title, but the worst that can happen is that we'll have to put a hatnote on the target page directing them to Persecution of Muslims if they were looking for that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a category.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: People could conceivably look this up when they were looking for an article on Islamophobia. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:16, 31 July 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. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Mitev

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

Non notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Mitev is a part of the first squad of the Bulgarian champion PFC Litex Lovech, with professional contract. He is one of the 25 footballers on the team for their 2011-12 UEFA Champions League campaign. He spent 2010-11 season in the professional club Pirin Blagoevgrad and was named as a substitute for 17 matches in the Bulgarian A PFG. Dfotev 13:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; he hasn't actually played yet, which is of vital importance. Giant Snowman 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ОК, but Souleymane Coulibaly for example, also has not played in the professional football. Dfotev 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coulibaly was kept at AfD because he apparently passes WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as he has yet to make a single league appearance for a senior team. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG, and without fully pro appearances he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that the article satisfies any of our notability guidelines. It should be re-created if and when the article can satisfy them (e.g., Mitev makes some appearances in a fully-pro league). Jogurney (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. It seems like the following note from WP:NFOOTBALL applies here: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 July 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 Bouygues. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bouygues Controversy

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

This appears to be a single-sided, inflammatory article created simply as the editor was unable to add this information to the article on the company itself. I *do* believe that, given the references, some of this information *could* be useful in the Bouygues page itself, however only if approached from a neutral standpoint. Nik thestoned 12:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 12:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge interesting and sourced; support the incorporation of this information in Bouygues (after suitable editing). Yunshui (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the editor who created this page appears to have POV issues; if my interpretation of their use name is correct eg User talk:Antibashist ="anti" + "bash" (from Türkmenbaşy "bashi") + "ist" an in leftist etc. (Is that a fair comment?)

I've already added a reference to the proliferation of turkmen contracts in the Bouygues article - that is clearly citable.

One part I think might/should be mentioned an am willing to add to the bouygues article is the bit about the http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c2252c,4565c25f389,4b87865ec,0.html - which comes from what I would consider a neutral source - however it needs further information to actually link it with bouygues work.

The main argument appears to be based on leaked diplomatic cables from USA diplomats - it would be important for someone to link to this, (and tell me/us if these are considered reliable).

The article appears to be conflating two issues -

alleged corruption relating to building contracts for companies operating in Turkmenistan
evictions causing concern amongst human rights bodies and other western liberal organisations eg http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1075993.html , http://www.hlrn.org/img/violation/TurkmenistanEviction.pdf etc

Both seem to me to be possible articles, or article sections. Are there any wikiprojects that could help with this eg WikiProject:Human Rights ?

I really think that this is a Turkmenistan issue, and should be dealt with primarily on a suitable Turkenistan page. There is Human rights in Turkmenistan but I couldn't find a suitable place for corruption within Category:Corruption - Corruption in Turkmenistan is clearly a valid topic to cover, as is Foreign investment in Turkmenistan [12] [13] [14]. I just think it has been done wrong here.

Summary : merge somewhere / bring lack of proper coverage of topic to relevent editors attention

Imgaril (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bouygues and/or other Turkmenistan-related page(s). The material obviously doesn't belong in its current form. Not only does it violate WP:NPOV, but it provides absolutely no context for the reader (see WP:PCR); I initially had no idea what or who "Bouygues" was from reading about his/her/its "controversy". Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I was initially dismayed by Imgaril's revert, but didn't have time to rehash this info - these are well known accusations in France that Bouygues has 'dodgy' business links/contracts with Turkmenistan. After reflection, apparently there are some POV issues, but a shortened form of this info should appear in the article IMO. And I could look around to find some French sources to back up what's being said if anybody needs a hand. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bouygues and address the issue there neutrally. I don't say merge because the text is not useable in this form. Sandstein 06:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Sphilbrick. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George The Dust Bunny

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

Amateur comic strip with no claim to notability. Contested PROD. Should be speedy deletable IMO but there's no applicable criterion (I mistakenly thought it was a web publication so tagged it as db-web at first). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MADEUP. bonadea contributions talk 08:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the author has now left a comment on the article page that s/he supports the deletion. There is no assertion of notability, G and G news don't turn anything up. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly speedily as the article now refers to a blogspot page rather than to the written version... Peridon (talk) 09:15, 26 July 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. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ruddy

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

An illustrator who is working on his first book. Only claim to fame is an award for Best Animation at Screentest, a UK student film festival. Unable to find reliable references except for Screentest. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE, though he may well be in a few years. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the one reference only states details about his animation, but nothing about him. Therefore his birthplace and current location are uncited. I am led to believe this is an autobiography or written by a friend or family member, both of which are discouraged. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't find any coverage results on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 27 July 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 Space Interferometry Mission. merge, per apparent consensus here, regardless of the motive for nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry

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

Fails WP:GNG, hard. Seems to be more GNAA padding. No significant coverage, etc. Two of the three sources were written by the "creators" of this technique. ("Independent of the subject") LiteralKa (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment (leaning on keep). It sure has few references, but the ones it has are from NASA's JPL. Those are not a random blog entry, those are strong references. We do not expect much 'net fuss about such subjet either. My only doubt is, is this actually (planned to be) used somewhere? Or is it a single paper about a possible technique? I have not found any application, but have not looked deep. {note: I have just copyedited the article} - Nabla (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the significant coverage? Where's the media praising this enterprising new astrometry technique? Until I see it, it fails WP:GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"significant coverage" does not mean - at all - the need to have media praise. It is well enough to be published by a reliable scientific institution (and I bet NASA's JPL fits that and it is not out there publishing any crap it fancies just to promeote it's author - certainly not as a rule...). So, no media praise is not a problem. That we have one single paper (still) and that it may be only that, one papper, is a problem. - Nabla (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood me, I said that it lacked significant coverage and no news coverage. LiteralKa (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I did, yes. Anyway, I stick to assuming that being a work done at NASA, published by it, and at the very least echoed in several other reputable institutions is a good start for significant coverage (e.g. Harvard as seen using the search provided in the nomination intro).

Oh! Off course, the article says it: It is was to be used at the Space Interferometry Mission - Nabla (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh... Could you rephrase that? I can't understand it. LiteralKa (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the informal writing... I was asking myself, and in here, if this technique was really used anywhere, that would be a strong point for it. And the article says it is, it was to be used at a NASA project: SIM. I missed that info at first glance because I am not familiar with it. - Nabla (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails to meet even the most basic inclusion guidelines: it lacks any significant coverage (or any coverage, for that matter) and two of the sources appear to have been authored by the creators of this technique. 70.72.193.104 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC) — 70.72.193.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge with Space Interferometry Mission since this technique isn't quite notable on its own, with only one news reference and a handful of scholar articles this better belongs merged with the telescope article until it becomes a technique worth writing home about. riffic (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a bad idea. I'd be open to this. LiteralKa (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Severely lacking in significant coverage, thus not meeting GNG. Zalgo (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can go back to the work place it came from. Szzuk (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient significant sourcing independent of the material itself. Failing this, merge as suggested above, targeting Space Interferometry Mission. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've asked Mike Peel to weigh in here, as it's sort of his field of expertise. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This definitely isn't worth its own article - it's not a widely used technique, as shown by there only being a few papers talking about it, and those papers have only been cited a few times. The text would fit in well with a general article on the different astrometric techniques (provided appropriate weight was given to each technique), but we don't seem to have such an article at the moment. So merging it with the SIM article sounds like the best approach for now - probably under the 'Instruments' section, which could be generalised to 'Instruments and techniques'. (Note: I'm an astronomer, but not an expert in this particular field.) Mike Peel (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Mike. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Space Interferometry Mission. Doesn't seem to pass the notability test on its own, but entirely acceptable as a subsection of that article. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mike. Diego talk 18:26, 27 July 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 List of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Regal

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable person covered directly and in detail by multiple reliable sources (ie. WP:GNG) – for instance, The Times source in its entirety says, "During a 10-year City career in foreign exchange sales, Regal worked at Bloomberg and JP Morgan. Now studying for the Bar, she is also an independent member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and was named Pro Bono Hero by the attorney-general for her legal charity work." Is this detailed, significant coverage? I would have to say not. The same goes for the other (malformatted) references. ╟─Treasury Tag►Osbert─╢ 15:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2009 recognition by Management Today magazine.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote the significant coverage from that magazine, because I'm unable to spot any myself? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 15:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs the links converted to actual references, but the Times link works for me, for now. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean aside from being trivial, rather than significant, coverage, one assumes? ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no specific assertion of notability. The times link, as a one to watch doesn't cut it for me, at all. Nothing found in my search that would provide the independent , focused commentary about her that would support an article about her life under a WP:GNG pass. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few mentions of her in reliable sources, but it appears to be trivial coverage to me. It doesn't appear to me that she meets a specific subject guideline, but I'm open to correction if I've missed something. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not against a redirect to List of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many sites/magazines make up "top X to watch" - but that in and of itself is not enough to be notable. Did they actually do something after being first seen? That would be the real clincher. This person - not so much that I can find anywhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's an independent member of the Metropolitan Police Authority: a position of significant power and she's attracted quite a lot of attention for a lawyer of her youth. It's up for grabs whether this makes her, strictly speaking, "notable" by Wikipedia's guidelines. The mistake that Off2riorob, Qrsdogg and Bwilkins are making is to assume that a lack of notability means "delete". It doesn't. It means "redirect to Metropolitan Police Authority". See WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD for detailed reasoning here. Whatever we decide to do about this article, it won't involve the use of the delete button.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why a redirect to the MPA rather than to JP Morgan or to Bloombergs, if we're going down that line? ╟─Treasury Tag►Odelsting─╢ 20:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read. Comprehend. Think. Edit. JP Morgan and Bloombergs are just ~~law firms~~ firms with legal departments, but the Metropolitan Police Authority is a political quango that wields significant practical authority.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regal resigned from the MPA last year. A redirect to Metropolitan Police Authority would make sense only if that article were to become an archive of former as well as current members (yes, the article is out of date). --88.109.60.234 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I updated the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority per the discussion above.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a redlink not notable list...are you serious? Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer a redlink, and it's perfectly notable.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy yourself then. I imagine if you don't populate it it will get some deletion attention. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should imagine so.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of former members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, thanks to S Marshall. - Off2riorob (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom as the Times quotation is certainly detailed, significant coverage and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:31, 21 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She looks pretty ordinary to me. A minor offical and she had a few jobs. Refs are trivial. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to newly created list. Still not enough coverage for BLP. Might be notable one day; sources certainly point subject's career to be rising. Times article amplifying the Haymarket Group top 35 list puts this right at the edge. Sourcing the subject's place on a list is appropriate coverage at this time. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list above. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage clearly exists on her as per Colonel Warden. VER Tott 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She has ~50 words in that times article. It's a trivial mention. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times coverage is enough.[15] Its not the size of the mention, but what she is mentioned for. A major news source put her on their list. "They are high achievers and their careers are being forged in the toughest of times - amid a recession. The 35 women under 35 picked by Management Today are the first in a generation to see such a downturn". This is something of an accomplishment. Its not the top 35 people someone famous has dated, run over, or vomited on. This is a significant achievement, not just some trivial nonsense. Dream Focus 03:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is a reasonable argument for notability. I would say at the least, she is clearly on the cusp of having enough notability, and although we can't see the future, her work so far is clearly being recognized as notable. -- Avanu (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a trivial mention because the article isn't about her. She is just one of 35 women in the list and given ~50 words. How about we wait until she has an article written about her? Being in a newspaper list doesn't convey notability. Szzuk (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - First mentioned in http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/915845 and then in Times who thought it notable enough to cover as well. So did her old college: BPP Law School alumni newletter. She gets mentioned at http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/CareersHome/ProfileLibrary/DeborahRegal/ which doesn't profile many people. She received a national award/recognition given to her by the Attorney General. [16] "At an 11th November reception in the House of Commons Members' Dining Room, the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, recognised members of the legal profession from across the country who ..." "Deborah Regal (GDL London 07/08), for her employment pro bono work and for her significant efforts in raising awareness about pro bono among MPs for their constituents." Dream Focus 11:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The management today article is identical to the times article, presumably they had permission to copy - a trivial mention. The e-newsletter...doesn't "e-newsletter" tell you anything? And she has a bio on the bar council website, well she is in the bar council, so its hardly independant. So what else is there? Szzuk (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: no, two sentences in The Times does not count as "significant coverage", other sources in the article do not appear to be third-party, and Google News/Books does not appear to turn up any information on this Deborah Regal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brad_Anderson_(director)#Future_projects. done a redirect, merge what's useful but bear inmind the redirect will be undonw when the film is released Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (2011 film)

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

Film is in pre-production: WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Also, no significant content. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to director's article and redirect to Brad_Anderson_(director)#Future_projects ~~Incubate~~ Pardon Rob, but significant coverage is there when one looks. Within just moments I found Variety [17] JoBlo [18] Dread Central [19] Empire Online [20] Indiewire [21] Slashfilm [22] Collider [23] Bloody Disgusting [24] Dread Central [25] USA Today [26] and many others. Does the stub article need major expansion? Yes. Would easily found sources permit expansion? Heck yes. In this case, incubation will allow and encourage a collaborative effort by interested editors is making the current stub article more suitable for mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael - it wasn't the coverage that was insignificant, but the actual content on the page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brad_Anderson_(director)#Future_projects MichaelQSchmidt's search for sources is commendable and the nominator should take note of this per WP:BEFORE. That being said, many of the above sources do not comment very substantially on the film itself outside of its plot, such as the USA Today and Variety articles. In fact, many of them seem to reference the film in relation to Brad Anderson's upcoming work, or that John Cusack is playing a major role. I recommend the film be merged to the Brad Anderson page. It is currently mentioned there, but info about release date and Samuel L. Jackson's confirmed role can be added. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my "incubate" above. While incubation is a viable option, a merge and redirect serves just as well, and the article can either be spun back out or the the redirct reverted upon such time as principle filming begins. Ans I feel confident that the nominator did practice WP:BEFORE and came to the same conclusion of WP:NotJustYet as did I. He simply did not elaborate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:47, 26 July 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note Some discussion on Michael's sources would be really useful for establishing a consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brad_Anderson_(director)#Future_projects. The sources provided by Michael do indeed mention this future film, but often in a very tangential way. In any case, the WP:NFF guideline is very clear: until the production starts filming, it should not have its own article. --Noleander (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No argument here. Enough for a sourced mention in a related article per WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF, but not enough (yet) for a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:25, 29 July 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 Action T4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jenne

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

Notability lacking. Just because someone was the first or last to be killed by the Nazis is not notable. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why not? You did argue really nothing. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

05:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment — the one sentence about this 4 yr old victim can be folded into the article that refers to him. Jabbsworth (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His death is a tragedy, certainly, but the standard of "significant coverage" hasn't been, and is unlikely ever to be, met, therefore notability not demonstrated. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources. Battlegroud nomination in the conflict between ClaudioSantos and Jabbsworth. The article is two years old already, why is it only now not noteworthy? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, as you should. This has nothing to do with ClaudioSantos. He did not create this article. I only came across it yesterday, and immediately thought it looked like a suitable candidate for deletion. It's a one line article with few sources. Jabbsworth (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IS the friendly version, Jabbsworth. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there are some sources, I don't see significant coverage yet, which is part of our general notability guideline. Jesanj (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a victim of Nazism, who does not deserve to be eliminated by any mean again. -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the sort of reasoning we use when considering whether to keep or delete an article. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly I can not share any reasoning claiming "that nazi euthanasia started out with reasonable premises" as the first murdered victim was a boy "born blind, ill and idiot" _Jabbsworth. Then I insist in my criteria. Victims do not deserve to be eliminated again but, as they also commendably asked: they must be remembered by any mean. Perhaps Jabbswroth has the reason: current wikipedia criteria are more realistic and less true. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

01:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, wikipedia is not a memorial site. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability applies to every victim as much as notability applies to those who ordered and took part in the killing. This article could be expanded to detail why he was to be put to death, giving the reasons. --Hemshaw (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand the concept of wp:NOTABILITY. According to you, we should have 6 million articles, one for each Holocaust victim, and each article should be expanded to include a description of the mechanisms of the holocaust! That's simply ridiculous. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling sysop: note that this Keep vote was canvassed by User:ClaudioSantos, see him dropping a link to this page onto a known sympathiser for keeping anything related to disability here: [27] — Hemshaw added his Keep vote here 14 minutes after being canvassed. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, here com the double standards again. Why were you informing others about my supposed outing (and not me), and are other people not allowed to inform others about relevant subjects? Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I OBJECT TO THAT ACCUSATION!! I DO NOT BELEIVE IN DELETING FOR THE SAKE OF IT, SEE Deletionists I SPOTTED DELETE PROPOSAL ON MY OWN. DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF BIAS!--Hemshaw (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying users who edited that article is not canvassing. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is canvassing. I suggest you study what canvassing is. Picking a sympathetic editor from a list of article editors is canvassing. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did the same, Jabbsworth. Stop crying. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification: "...On the talk pages of concerned editors..." --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:PA calling "ridiculous" a comment of an user. For the rest: I also do not "understand" or at least I can not share this sort of notability standars. Just finding notable a device to commit "sui"cide but not a victim of the nazi euthanasia. And certainly there are millions of futile things with an article in wikipedia. Of course prefering things over people is reasonable under a merchandise based "society" --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a PA to call a comment ridiculous. I suggest you study wp:PA People say ridiculous things all the time. This page is all the proof you need. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it looks like your definitions about personal attacks differs between actions of you and actions of others. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos have been given final warnings for disruption and personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
Keep. Well-sourced. While victimhood is not inherent notability, Jenne's status as the very last victim of an enormous euthanasia program is. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a One Event problem, but in the end, there isn't really much that can be said about Richard Jenne anyway - not enough to warrant an article. All that can be said is his name, age, and how he died, and at the moment that constitutes one small paragraph and a line in the lead. The rest isn't about Jenne at all: background about the Action T4 program, which is already covered at Action T4; information about Irsee, much of which is duplicated (often word for word) in the Irsee article; and information about Faltlhauser and Wörle. In the end, although there are sources that mention Jenne, there isn't any significant coverage to build up an article, and what there is could be better used in Action T4 rather than creating what will either be a permanent stub or, as it is now, a content fork. I should add that victims of crime, as in this case, aren't normally sufficient to warrant an article, per WP:VICTIM. Instead we create an article on the event, which we've done with Action T4. - Bilby (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still information on particualr events and data not covered by the Nazi Euthanasia Program (Aktion T4) article. For example those about Spieglegrund clinic, Heinrich Gross, about Irsee clinic the place were Jenne was killed, personal of the Aktion T4, etc. Those sub-articles about Aktion T4 deserve an own article otherwise the main article will be just a padding of data, and the data itself will be hardly found. The conexts and data about Jenne is relevant, the Irsee events on the Irsee article can be merged into Richard Jenne article leaving there just two phrases redirecting to Richard Jenne. --

C laudio S antos ¿ ?

16:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those other articles aren't against policy, and have enough content to stand on their own. If you take out the padding, this article doesn't have enough to stand on its own, and contravenes WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME. Moving the Irsee events, which are about more than just Jenne, to the Richard Jenne article seems like the wrong direction - it would make more sense to move the small amount of Richard Jenne content to the Irsee article, or to the Action T4 article, given that all of the information we know about Jenne is in the context of Action T4 in general or, more specifically, what happened at Irsee - we know of nothing about Jenne outside of the event, and Jenne's role in the event was not, in itself, significant. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move - the material about the euthanasia program is notable, although being the first or last victim is not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage exists. Meets the general notability guideline. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Action T4. Bilby argues convincingly that there is not enough material for a separate article about this particular victim. Sandstein 06:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole (Chilean singer)

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

As here and there is no enough references showing notability :)Ladsgroup^بحث 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist is notable in Chile. That the article has no references it should have been solved by adding a tag, but certainly not AfD. A quick Google search shows lots of coverage on the artist. Despite Mr. Cantillano's status on other wikis, and his mass-creation of Nicole articles, shouldn't influence this AfD at all. Diego talk 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. LiteralKa (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, she doesn't. There are enough references which prove her notable, including this one from the Chilean National Council of Culture. Diego talk 21:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you've found one citation. Congrats! LiteralKa (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - There are plenty of other sources which discuss her in detail, just click that link to Google search. Plus, this AfD was made in the grounds of "spamming" by certain user, not on their notability, which you're contesting. Diego talk 21:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the nom? "and there is no enough references showing notability" LiteralKa (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, I'm being trolled by a moron. *Fucks off* Diego talk 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - How many times do I have to caution you about being civil? LiteralKa (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is biography info and references to her in random spots on the internet, such as here. snaphat (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment random spots on the Internet, really?

by random spots, I simply mean if you do a google search and go through the pages you will find multiple references. I listed one such source. There may not be lots of sources, but there is certainly enough. snaphat (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't see any significant coverage. LiteralKa (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of the stuff I found: ~~here~~, ~~here~~, here, here, ~~here~~, here, and here. I'm apologize that my post looks horrible when displayed, I do not mean it to, but I don not want to go through and write the names though for each link :-/. Some of the stuff I found linked on a non-english version of wikipedia. snaphat (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of those, only this and this don't immediately fail WP:RS (sans the last two as they are hidden behind paywalls) after a quick glance at them. LiteralKa (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, a few of those were based off of Wikipedia. Marking those out. what exactly is wrong the non-marked out ones that makes them fail WP:RS? snaphat (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. You agree with me regarding the non-marked out sources that can be accessed. The two behind a pay-wall also look legit from what I can see of them. I wonder if I can get a better view. snaphat (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found what appears to be a summary or copy of the first paywall article here. The second one appears to be talk about sale failures for a particular album. snaphat (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So to some up so far - if we take the non-paywall references here and the reference already on the article page we have 3 references that do not fail WP:RS. We have information about one of the paywall articles and it appears to be okay. And the other paywall article appears to be specifically about her, but we can't see the contents. snaphat (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was wrong, there are 4 references that do not fail WP:RS (not including the paywall articles) if we include the two I found, the one already on the article, and the one Diego showed. snaphat (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent reliable sources with significant coverage can be found by using the obvious search arguments at Google News. There's also some coverage in Billboard: [28][29]. Any concerns with editor behaviour can be dealt with by the processes that we have for behavioural issues, but should also consider the behaviour of those who are too quick to classify good-faith, constructive additions to Wikipedia as vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 28 July 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. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romano (guitarist, vocalist)

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

Unsourced biography. Notability per WP:NMG unclear. bender235 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Speedy delete I've nominated this for speedy as a copyright violation--the promotional and eulogistic tone is a giveaway.~~ Though with some digging it may be possible to find sources to start over [30]. 99.170.154.183 (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- The website which you have cited as the source of the text was created in January 2011 -- 3 months after the Wikipedia article was created in October 2010. Although I agree that the language is promotional, eulogistic and non-encyclopedic, (and the source of both articles is probably the same), it is not an clear copyvio. Therefore, I have declined the G12 speedy deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It was apparently written by the subject's daughter, which accounts for the tribute tone. Perhaps it can be stripped down and rewritten, provided reliable sources are added. 99.170.154.183 (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 14 July 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, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Memorial language has been removed and article rewritten with RS references. Notability is clear per WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:23, 21 July 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, Courcelles 02:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added illustrate sufficient notability. I moved it to Tony Romano (musician). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article is now proper thanks to the editors who have made recent improvements. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nice work. --bender235 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sourcing now. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential books

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

Woefully incomplete, redlinky. About half of them are by redlinked authors. No sources, no inbound links, only 15 edits in nearly 6 years of existence. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting concept, but no secondary sources are provided to show that the topic itself has been noted or that any of the books listed are examples of it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incoherent and ambiguous title and concept. There simply isn't a fourth wall to break in books like there is in stage, TV, or movies (such as It's Garry Shandling's Show or Moonlighting (TV series)), perhaps because there's no possibility of illusion in the first place that you're doing anything other than reading a story, regardless of whether it's fact or fiction.
Some of the books listed are works of fiction, the title of which references a fictional book within the fictional story (such as The Neverending Story). Other books are nonfiction books with titles that merely happen to reference the fact that it's a book (Steal This Book). Apart from those being two very different things, one would ultimately have to include all books with the words "history", "chronicles", "diary", or "memoirs" in the title if that is enough to satisfy inclusion.
And even if limited to self-referential content, it's extremely common for a nonfiction author to comment within the book on why he wrote the book, how he researched it, etc. It's also extremely common for autobiographers to directly address a reader or otherwise acknowledge that what they are writing will be read, or for a fictional narrator to do so as well. So it simply isn't meaningful to call a book "self-referential", at least not without some kind of sourced limiting concept to focus and demonstrate its validity. It might be possible for a book like The Unbearable Lightness of Being, in which Kundera narrates a fictional story in his own voice as an author, and in telling the story also explains his conception of the characters and his philosophical ideas underpinning the story rather than staying within the fiction (something its article does not yet note). But I don't know if there's a simple term or classification for that kind of literary device, and it would be in any event a completely different list. postdlf (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick and Les Misérables came to my mind.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read those yet (alas, the state of American education...) so I don't know how their structure/literary devices might relate. But I finally figured out what I was getting at with Unbearable Lightness of Being: metafiction. See List of metafictional works, which may itself be subject to criticism but it's much better defined and focused than this list. Maybe this list should just redirect there. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them have loads of great non-fiction material in with the story. In Moby Dick it's hard to tell if it's the author or the main character talking to us. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too vague and ambiguous a category. Makes it nearly impossible to verify more than a few entries, and potentially of infinite scope, and infinite arguments about what should / should not belong. Dzlife (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, conflates too many separate types of books: things that are really meta, things that are not really self-referential at all and just have "book" in the title, has the potential to include any eighteenth-century book that addresses the reader, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when you remove books whose titles are self referential, and any other trivial self referential titles, the rest are unsourced as having such content. I disagree that a book cant break the fourth wall. a novel simply has to include the reader in the narrative, making reference to the fact that the voice speaking is imaginary, and not just a "dear reader" narrative device. If someone can create a list of at least half a dozen novels which explicitly break the fourth wall, then i guess the article can stay, otherwise maybe just create a category (again, if sourced at the main article)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:36, 27 July 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 Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. Courcelles 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle T. Hayes

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

Contested redirect - individual appears to be unremarkable outside the Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation organization she runs. Google search on the name is inconclusive, due to common nature. Little significant coverage found. Search on "Michelle T. Hayes" Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation shows only six results. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation at best, if notabilty can't be established. –BuickCentury Driver 01:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Any appropriate material (that does not raise BLP concerns or concerns re use of primary sources) can be merged, as suggested (if there is any such appropriate material that is not already covered).

Then again, if this is kept, I suggest that it be limited to the last sentence, a full quarter of the article, which now reads:

"Also Known As "Mikie". In an interview published by the Medical University of South Carolina’s weekly newsletter, The Catalyst, Hayes stated: “Everyone (except the nuns) calls me ‘Mikie.’”

--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. No notability of this person per WP:PEOPLE. Nothing useful found in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Landes

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources that provide information on this game designer. The Internet Archive found a copy of the award EL here, but the designer's name wasn't listed there, although his company was listed in the 1995 awards via Wayback machine. There's a passing reference to him being a guest at a PBM game con in Dragon magazine #185 (archived http://dnd.ezael.net/~olep/Drmg185.pdf), page 30, center column, which suggests some notability in the field but doesn't really verify anything about him. It's entirely possible there are offline archives that provide better secondary coverage of this game designer. Additional sources would be gladly welcomed here. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not find any reliable sources to support notability of subject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:15, 31 July 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. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Craciun III

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

This is related to the WP:Articles for deletion/George Jay Wienbarg (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/David Capurso deletions. It was written by someone with a vested interest (Georgewienbarg (talk · contribs)) and is about an individual with borderline if at any notabilitity. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has notability in music and history of FM Radio. No obvious WP:COI Whiteguru (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, what? No obvious conflict of interest? What checking did you do before making that statement? The article was created by the user Georgewienbarg. The article mentions George Wienbarg as a business associate of Craciun. That is surely enough to strongly suggest a conflict of interest, even if you didn't search far enough to know that the user Georgewienbarg has elsewhere indicated that he is indeed the real life George Wienbarg. And as for "article has notability", simply saying so without giving sources or explaining how notability is shown is not very helpful. See WP:ITSNOTABLE.JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched, and can find no substantial coverage in any reliable third party source. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 July 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, 19 July 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) 00:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with James B. Watson: there are vitually no independent 2ndary sources that discuss this person. I see one trivial, passing reference in a book: Rock 'n' roll and the Cleveland connection (Page 239), but that is all. Not sufficient to meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Additionally, the article appears written by someone who had intimate knowledge of this guy's activities despite the dearth of references, raising COI concerns. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:07, 30 July 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. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Stephen Williams

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

One significant role. Fails WP:ENT. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 14 July 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) 00:01, 19 July 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) 00:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing reliable on Google to show notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This actor is on the cusp of notability. WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", but this actor has only one significant role, and a handful of minor appearances in other shows. Google hits show 99% self promotion/blogs/DB indexes, but very little independent commentary. --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sustainable sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Jade

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

Not a notable person. Changed from PROD because creator does have some valid points but I don't they are good enough JDDJS (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:26, 12 July 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, 19 July 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) 00:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This search turns up a few sites, like this, that may conceivably show notability. Not sure how reliable they are. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 26 July 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. In the sense of "retain as a disambiguation page"; how the page (and other related pages) should be named is not yet clear but can be resolved editorially. Sandstein 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tikhonov's theorem

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tikhonov's theorem

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

Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Tikhonov's theorem. Below is the discussion:

Only 3 links; one is red and according to the deletion log[31] has never existed (the dab page was created in 2009). This can be adequately addressed with {{distinguish}} on one page and {{redirect}} on the other. A dab page is unnecessary. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why's this on MfD and not AfD? Nevertheless, the rationale is valid; dab pages for only two entries are always pointless, as getting to the "correct" page always takes exactly as many steps in the worst case with two hatnotes as it does with a dab, and in the former case over 50% of readers should have no additional steps to take. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G6 agreed, the names are disparate enough that {{distinguish}} is all you need. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep, speedy declined. Does not meet speedy criterion. Perhaps we should have an entry for the missing item. Red links are good. Anyone looking for it or any of the theorems would come here, and might well known enough to write it. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an argument based on the deletion guidelines, nor one helpful to our readers (who outnumber our editors by several orders of magnitude). If the article is written the dab page can be trivially reinstated. Until then it is actively hindering readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move this listing to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copied discussion) Cunard (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Is this an article or a disambiguation page? Unreferenced and consisting solely of three links and brief explanations, without any explanation of its subject, this page is close to meeting WP:A3. Interchangable (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 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) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be useful as a disambiguation page; spelling of Russian(?) names is not the strong point of many editors / readers. Redlink could be created, theoretically. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a disambiguation page, although it only contains two extant articles. Granted, as someone above points out, its purpose could be achieved with a disambig link at the top of both articles. However, WP:Disambiguation says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." But in this case, it does not appear that one is "primary", so a Disambig page may be appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The terms are very similar, both in name and concept. I would say they're close enough that if a person was looking for one and found the other they may never even suspect they were in the wrong place. It also prevents confusion among people looking for the redlinked term. For Technical terms, clarity is preferred to brevity, and I think the disambiguation helps keep the issue clear.--Djohns21 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – useful disambiguation page. --Lambiam 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We should also include something about Tikhonoff's uniqueness theorem for the heat equation; that makes three entries, enough for a valid dab. I can't tell whether that is supposed to be the same as the theorem in the redlink or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I sharply disagree that you can't have dab pages with only two entries. It's not about number of clicks, which Chris Cunningham mentioned; it's about whether you can identify one meaning as primary, which should mean that it is very substantially more likely to be linked or searched, not just a little more likely. If two articles are of roughly the same prominence, then you shouldn't declare one primary just to avoid a dab page. That said, no !vote here, because I think the one about compact spaces is probably primary. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There are three topics listed. One of them is a red link, but it's a good red link, to a topic that deserves an article. Probably everyone remembers learning Tikhonov's theorem in a topology course as an undergraduate (OK, experiences vary, but the one on compact spaces is one that everybody knows) but some people who routinely use the term "Tihkonov's theorem" are talking about one of the others. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Later note: I think Tychonoff's theorem and Tikhonov's theorem should not be separate articles, but rather the various different spellings should redirect to one page, since if I'm not mistaken, they all have the same spelling in the original Cyrillic. There should be a disambiguation page with the three links. What it should be called is another question. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Chris Cunningham's proposal that dab pages with only two links are always pointless is wrong, as noted by Trovatore above. Also, the names are not at all disparate; they're the same name, spelled in the same way in the original Cyrillic letters. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As RDBury pointed out on WT:MATH, Tikhonov's theorem seems to be just an alternative spelling of Tychonoff's theorem. So one way or the other, the page under discussion probably should be a redirect to Tychonoff's theorem. This doesn't exclude the possibility of a disambig page if the two meanings are thought to have comparable prominence; in that case, the current Tychonoff's theorem page would be moved to something like Tychonoff's theorem on products of compact spaces (or whatever title makes the most sense), and the redirect left behind would then be turned into a disambig page. But making one spelling an article and the other one a disambig just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. --Trovatore (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comment If it is decided that T[ik|ch]ono[v|ff]'s theorem should be a disambig page, then the right order to do the moves is:
  - First, move Tychonoff's theorem to Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces (or whatever)
  - Second, delete the redirect at Tychonoff's theorem and move Tikhonov's theorem (the current disambig page) to Tychonoff's theorem
  - Third, edit the new Tychonoff's theorem, containing the content of the old Tikhonov's theorem, so that it has a link to Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces. --Trovatore (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rather than Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces, the title Tychonoff's product theorem has also been proposed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tychonoff's theorem, clearly the primary topic. Or move this page to Tychonoff's theorem (disambiguation). —Kusma (t·c) 11:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Tikhonov's theorem" to Tychonoff's theorem, which as mentioned above is clearly the primary topic (it's a common first example of a theorem equivalent to the axiom of choice). Take the content at the current page and move it to Tychonoff's theorem (disambiguation) or whatever is the appropriate parenthetical. I think that it would be unreasonable to change "Tychonoff's theorem" to anything else. RobHar (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tikhonov's theorem (dynamical systems) now exists. It's no longer a red link. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Noling

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD focused solely on finding reliable sources for this article. While the sources were found, I am now proposing deletion on the grounds that the subject, known only for his unremarkable crime, clearly fails WP:PERP and WP:1EVENT. Interchangable (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he was convicted of horrible murders, every murder is by definition horrible. WP:PERP gives us guidance about which biographies of criminals should stay on Wikipedia. This one fails that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been trough the AfD process. No consensus was reached., I dont know what could have changed that would justify deletion. It ssomething about that, that never makes any sense to be concerning re-nomination for AfD,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed, in fact - this man is still non-notable. The previous AfD focused solely on finding reliable sources. The only policies or guidelines stated were WP:BIO by a voter for delete, and WP:RS by a voter for keep - and even that voter said they weren't sure reliable sources were enough. No one cited a policy to show that murder is not a notable act. I should also call WP:MILL in to question, seeing as the circumstances of the crime were highly average. Interchangable (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a valid keep !vote, you really need to say more than "this has already gone through an AfD". No consensus means that discussion had no clear consensus, and that should absolutely not be used as a reason to keep an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNGs are alternate paths to notability, so since WP:GNG is satisfied, WP:PERP doesn't need to be considered. (See WP:N, "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." emphasis added.) Also, the WP:PERP argument has incorrectly not considered the possibility of merging this material to another article. An argument for deletion would be that the material here is of a temporary nature (see WP:N#Notability is not temporary), but the scope of coverage has gone far beyond the Balloon_boy_hoax. The news media love to report on murder. It is also never possible with death sentence disputes to avoid the reality that a man's life hangs in the balance. So even if we were to consider writing a specific policy to prevent "routine" death-row articles on Wikipedia, such a thing cannot really exist, and so we aren't really going to improve the encyclopedia by doing so. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 25 July 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) 00:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Unscintillating that WP:PERP is just one way to meet notability requirements. But does this even meet general notability? This is a person convicted of a crime in Ohio, and there is a small, local movement to set him free. Questions about his guilt have been raised in local Ohio newspapers on and off over the past 8 years. But I dont see any special significance to the crime, or the victims, or the accused, or the movement to vindicate. I suppose if some national media picked up on it, it might cross a threshold into greater notability. --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From The Plain Dealer, "The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, United States. It has the largest circulation of any Ohio newspaper, and is a top 20 newspaper for circulation in the U.S." I'd also think that decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court would count as national media, but I can't cite any policy immediately. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Supreme courts rule on lots of things, often of incredibly minimal importance; don't mistake their decisions as holding the same weight as the supreme court at the federal level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, the newspaper has at least somewhat of a national readership. But it also obviously deals with local coverage, under which this obviously falls.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per PERP. The extending coverage is not nearly extensive enough to overrule that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BIO1E, articles like this should be named after the event... and this event fails the sub-guidelines in WP:EVENT including WP:GEOSCOPE. Location (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PERP which overrides spikes in coverage when someone is sentenced to death. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Finnegan (journalist)

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

Article had one reference, now deleted--and it was a dead link anyway. A Google search gave me no reason to think this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This guy is definitely a writer for the LA Times (of pieces like this one), a newspaper which is large enough that it could signify notability for more prominent contributors. Several Times (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could, yes, but I see no evidence that it should. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I guess that's why you nominated it for deletion in the first place! Notability isn't always a one-man-show and can be directly influenced by involvement with some larger, more notable entity. I'm not saying that this is in any way a good example of that, just that some other editor may consider it sufficient evidence. Several Times (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR which pertains to journalists. Location (talk) 01:20, 22 July 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) 00:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are added. I would have added BLP PROD. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is true that he is a published writer, but unless independent sources write about him, he does not rise to meet WP notability standards. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – has written lots of articles (search "Michael Finnegan" site:latimes.com) but AFAICS doesn't yet show up as a significant interviewer or notable commentator. - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ab-Soul

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

A rapper. He has released two mixtapes and just released one album on the independent label, Top Dawg Entertainment. Be careful of the references. For example, the reference titled, "Reputable source for artist interviews" is a blog site and "Music Record Label" is to a YouTube video. Only reliable reference is to a LA Times blog about the group he is with. Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source to indicate notability. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 01:55, 21 July 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) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Non-notable per lack of RS's, but there could be room for improvement. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I couldn't verify notability of Ab-Soul from independent secondary sources, but it may be possible to merge the articles for Ab-Soul plus the other members of his group (Black Hippy) into a single article with sufficient notability for the group as a whole. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Rapaport (radio program manager)

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

General manager of a New York City radio station that rose to #1 in the ratings thanks to disco. Only found a few sources that are about the radio station with Rapaport adding some quotes. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:EXISTENCE no significant contributions by rapaport or as per WP:PERMASTUB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehmeet singh (talk • contribs) 12:51, 19 July 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) 00:30, 26 July 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 Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Courcelles 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzschlag MNIT Jaipur

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. all I could find was 1 gnews hit [32]. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete not passing WP:EVENT guidelines but it can be passed under WP:ATD which says If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content. Care should be taken not to give the event undue weight or violate our policy and If there is no suitable target for merging, a solution may be to rework the article to widen its context beyond a single event.Sehmeet singh (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur and merge after severely pruning its content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 25 July 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) 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Balagot

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

The references in the article either fail the standards for reliable sources or do not directly concern the subject (or both), and quick search did not reveal a sufficient amount of independent coverage. wctaiwan (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response: If this page is deleted it will break the composer link from 6 Days on Earth. As a transgender activist, Balagot's article on Gwen Arajo's death has been cited in two scholarly sources.

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) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any significant independent 2ndary sources discussing this person. There are some passing references on the web, and IMDB does have some data ... but just means the person was credited for some job in a film production. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 July 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. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Daughter of Gallifrey

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

Unsourced, non-notable fanwank. Even the name is a neologism with no support. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See if there's anything that can be salvaged for inclusion in Time Lord. If so, redirect there. Otherwise, delete. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Time Lord. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 24 July 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, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Time Lord or delete. A brief character appearance, no real-world information in the article, some speculation - looks like fancruft, not the fundament of a notable character. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and wait to be redirected, in "A Good Man Goes to War", it is strongly implied that this little girl is River Song; if this is confirmed in the episodes to be aired in the fall, then this could redirect to that article. However, the title is conjuctural and would not be appropriate; River isn't even from Gallifrey. And if she isn't River, she is still (so far) a character not notable enough to have her own article. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a neologism made up by some fans, with no official basis. Do not merge to Time Lord -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, WP:ESSAY Edgepedia (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Sceptre. Njsustain (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude. There is no reliably sourced information to merge. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 July 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) 00:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Andrews (British politician)

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

Politician in local government who runs a facebook group as his claim to notability. While no doubt notable in south Coventry, he's not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I disagree. City councillors of a major metropolitan city are notable, and with a population of over 300K Coventry qualifies. The article needs more sources, but can be and should be saved. Meelar (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd seriously question the fact that Coventry is a major metropolitan city. It isn't even the largest city in its region. Secondly however the WP:POLITICIAN guideline doesn't say that city councillors are automatically notable it says "2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city."

So even if we accept the dubious proposition that Coventry is a major metropolitan city, being a city councillor there isn't enough. He still needs to achieve significant press coverage to be notable and having hunted for that, I'm not seeing any significant press coverage for him. Valenciano (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 24 July 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, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a Californian, so I was previously unaware that Coventry is considered a backwater by some. I also am aware that the definition of "major metropolitan city" is somewhat subjective. However, in my opinion, a city of over 300,000 that is the 11th largest in the United Kingdom, qualifies as a major metropolitan city. I would certainly consider any California city (such as Oakland, California for example) of roughly that size as a major metropolitan city. I would also presume that a search for sources that properly disambiguates such a common name as "Allan Andrews" would uncover an abundance of reliable sources covering such a politician. Am I wrong? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perhaps "councillor" signifies something different in California; in England it's generally a very minor position. Andrews doesn't represent the whole of Coventry, but is just one of three councillors in one ward, which is itself just one of 18 wards of the city council. Also, on Googling "Allan Andrews" Coventry I find nothing beyond run-of-the-mill local councillor business. --A bit iffy (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with Valenciano that WP:POLITICIAN does not automatically confer notability on council members. They must still receive "significant press coverage" and I dont see evidence of that in Google. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree that ordinary councillors at any level in the UK are not inherently notable. If they hold some higher office within the council, such as leader, that may well make them notable (for county and unitary authority councils at least), but an ordinary ward councillor is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Soul

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

(1) All of the references used are from YouTube which isn't a great source because most of the time it's self published WP:SOCIALMEDIA (2) Since the only references provided are from YouTube, that shows that Supreme Soul does not have significant coverage WP:SIGCOV; I did a search myself on Google and only found their social network pages (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.), YouTube videos, photos, and older small articles from MTV.com like this one (3) They are only notable for being competitors on the show WP:ONEVENT (4) All the other reasons listed in the warning template at the top of the article. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Gbern3 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ONEVENT Stuartyeates (talk) 02:25, 24 July 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) 00:01, 26 July 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. no objection to recreation if sources are provided Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biod

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

Not notable and has a small chance of being expanded. --Σ ^talk_contribs 21:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are apparently independent references and much more content in the native language wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 24 July 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) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article will be expanded. The Dutch version will be translated for this purpose. This article and its Dutch compeer are not created by a company for commercial purpose but by a member of a Dutch internet forum of BIOD enthusiasts.

Not only Biod products but also the use of polyester in bodywork construction are key areas of interest of a broad group of interested parties.

Hans Plantinga (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability per WP:RS, WP:INDY, WP:GNG. I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources here at all — either in this (English) article, or in the corresponding Dutch article. I also couldn't find any such sources in a Google search. Simply expanding the article isn't enough to establish notability; you need to show multiple reliable sources that are not connected with the subject (i.e., not from the company, and not from fans of the company, and not from people who are trying to sell the company's products). Has this company or its stuff been discussed in newspapers, consumer reporting magazines, or anything of that sort? Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What matters to me is how the article looks now, after 14 days of AfD, and it does not contain references to coverage sufficient for notability. If such exist, it would have been easy to add them by now. Sandstein 06:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Página/12. Courcelles 01:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario/12

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

From google results appears to be not notable St8fan (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be a component of pagina12 which gets alot of google hits and is used in a lot of wikipedia references. Something here certainly feels notable, but (not speaking the language) it's hard to tell what. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:10, 24 July 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) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Página/12, the newspaper for which this is a regional supplement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no independent notability Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 26 July 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 Breaking Bad. I'm going redirect instead of merge as the evidence is this broke out from the main article but if there is material to merge go ahead Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of Breaking Bad

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

Not notable. The Directors and the writers are already on the epiosde list and the section about the producers are alredy on the main site. Gruselfratze (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is established by award nominations as per wikiproject television guidelines. I started in a list format for writers and directors but I plan to expand this. Non-notable writers and directors can be expanded on in the crew article. The producers are mentioned in the main article because I added them as a summary of this article when branching it out. The level of detail there is necessarily less than in this article as per the summary style guideline. Not all the producers are mentioned on the main article. --Opark 77 (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a section on editors which is not found elsewhere.--Opark 77 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The biggest issue standing out here that I see is that it looks like this article started out as an improper copypaste from the main article on the series. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at it further, this may be an issue as well with the multiple other "Crew of" articles made by the creator of this article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for taking the time to look at the article Yaksar. I have read the policy you link to. I am not clear where you think I performed an improper copy and paste. I wrote the crew section in the original articles in most of the cases where I started the "crew of" subarticle. I cannot see where I needed to give attribution. Please can you clarify what you think is improper?--Opark 77 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a note stating that the content came from the main article for the show on the Crew of Breaking Bad talk page and added a note on the Breaking Bad article noting that I started a subarticle.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've left a message for Yaksar on his talk page in addition to here as the discussion seems to potentially include a series of similar articles I have worked on rather than this individual article.--Opark 77 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references and moving all the sub-pages to the main page would lead to a huge page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 24 July 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, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Breaking Bad. The main article can still accommodate it and there's no evidence that the topic of the crew as such meets WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Colbert de Torcy (secondary school) and turn article into one about school rather than event. The event itself is of borderline notability, even adjusting for WP:BIAS, but the school itself can be included as per WP:NHS and the suggestion of an editor in the discussion, under WP:ATD. Cerejota (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sablé-sur-Sarthe hostage crisis

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

Pointless news story Alsop38 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News blip fails WP:EVENT. Intense news coverage in anticipation of another Dunblane massacre, then after two days... nothing. Location (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - got alot of media attention at the time. ofcourse a hostage situation from a couple of years ago wont get alot of media atention after sometime. but that doesnt change the fact that it got alot of attention at the time. I say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I can see this article is in need of an update and expansion. not deletion. always consider the better alternatives before nominating for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Switching google to French and searching seems to find lots of sources. There are also lots of sources in the French wikipedia edition of this page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 24 July 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, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Event. I see virtually no significant news coverage in English speaking sources. It does not meet the specific event/crime criteria needed, such as WP:INDEPTH or WP:EFFECT. Bottom line: this is a run-of-the mill crime in non-English-speaking country, with virtually no reporting in the English speaking world. --Noleander (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the event itself is non-notable per WP:EVENT. It has no enduring historical significance. In that, I agree with Noleander. However, I disagree that it is the lack of English language sources that is the problem here. After all, this is the online English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not the online encyclopedia of the English speaking world. This is a critical distinction. We ought to strive to cover everything notable, no matter the language spoken by the participants or the reporters or the authors of reliable sources describing the topic. English language sources are preferred when a range of sources are available. However, when sources are limited but solid, sources in any language are acceptable. This, in my opinion, is a bedrock principle of this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Colbert de Torcy (secondary school) None of the three arguments to delete consider WP:ATD alternatives. Questions about 1EVENT have no standing if this material is part of an article about the secondary school. We have enough material from the BBC news story to make an article about the secondary school. We would just need to rename the article, add a hatnote to the existing Colbert de Torcy article, and add the lede:

Colbert de Torcy is a secondary school in Sable-sur-Sarthe, France.

And then add a new section with the existing article and reference. Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 27 July 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.