Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 8#Strong (relative detectability)

< 7 November	9 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific plagiarism in India

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

It comprises of inappropriate information, about Dr.Gopal Kundu which affects his reputation being a scientist.Thus, I kind request to delete this article. It also comes on first page of google results when we search with keyword "Dr Gopal Kundu". user:Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk)— Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Serious COI issues involving this nomination. Scientific plagiarism in India deals with several cases, appropriately referenced, just one of which involves Dr. Gopal Kundu. The article on Gopal Kundu is a new creation by the AfD nominator. It also failed to mention this controversy and was glowing in its praises to a level that fell outside WP:NPOV. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suppressing information which might be unfavourable to a particular person's reputation is not a reason for deletion. Also, even if we were to accept that that one section is unacceptable, to regard that as a reason to delete the whole article would be absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The nominator's rationale is not very helpful; this should be discussed at WP:BLPN. That section seems well referenced, and fits the article, so I'd not consider it a problem. On the other hand, I wonder about the article. First, why not move it to plagiarism in India? Second, I am worried this article can be a synthesis; it is indeed more of a list of plagiarisms by scientists in India than an overview of the topic the current title implies, and I am having trouble finding any sources that deal with that big picture. A look on Google books suggests there may be few (three?) sources, so I think tha the article is rescuable (and the issue seems notable enough to warrant coverage). The current focus on case studies, however, is not the best model. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps a BLP overview is necessitated, if GopalKundu is alive. AshLin (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not valid reasons. ResMar 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note This AfD was not included in any daily AfD listing whatsoever until just now (when I listed it myself). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing in the nomination statement is even remotely close to any criteria for listing here on Afd. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well sourced article. Polyamorph (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well-sourced. Some specific entries may require BLP review, but that's no reason for article deletion. -- 202.124.75.208 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a previous AfD led to Plagiarism controversies in india being merged into this article. -- 202.124.75.208 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article appears to be well-sourced and NPOV. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: the Gopal Kundu section appears well-sourced, and that controversy continues to attract considerable media interest in India, so that notability of the section is also clear. There are also a number of sources drawing general conclusions from the affair, but perhaps none reliable enough to include. -- 202.124.75.145 (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthe nomination did not make sense. Please rephrase it clearly.Bunser (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Gopal Kundu Controvesy" of article "Scientific plagiarism in India" contains invalid information about him and the controversy, He is a former scientist who has registered patents and works at National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, India. The page also refers to unofficial invalid sources. I request you to check official website of NCCS,Pune,India which is a Indian government body. the URL is www.nccs.res.in/gck.html. Please consider this request because it affects his reputation.

Thanks. Shrikantbhalerao101 (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shrikantbhalerao101 has repeatedly posted the same or substantially the same message in various places, including 11 user talk pages. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to how or why the information is "invalid", and which sources are "invalid" and why, but have received no reply. The web page referred to (www.nccs.res.in/gck.html) is Gopal Kundu's page on the web site of his employer. As far as I can make out, Shrikantbhalerao101's point in continually referring to it is "this is the person's 'official' page, and doesn't mention the controversy, therefore the controversy should not be mentioned in any Wikipedia article. Other sources, not 'officially' approved by the person or his employers, should not be used." However, it is impossible to be sure whether that actually is what is intended, as repeated requests for clarification have met only with the same statements being repeated, and no clarification. Shrikantbhalerao101's editing consists entirely of trying to promote Gopal Kundu's reputation, both by adding favourable material (often unsourced) and by attempting to suppress unfavourable information. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - bordering on OR by synthesis. This needs to be referenced better and remove opinions such as the opening line of "...is rising" - unless there is a reference with large scale data to say so. The article is currently based on a bunch of cases with primary sources for them. What it needs is a secondary/tertiary source. Here is a possible source 1 Shyamal (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, adequetly-referenced, long-established article. Was surprised to see no attempt at discussion first on the article's talk page before bringing this to AfD so hastily. -- œ ^™ 04:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Youth Party

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

Article lacks any reliable sources for verification. I looked briefly for sources, but Google News and its archives appear to have nothing on this new political party and it appears they have not successfully put forth any candidates for election, despite the fact that the article says it was founded in 2008. Steven Walling • talk 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No relevant sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hundred of minor political parties in India, but many of them are not notable enough for WP. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability.--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not have in-depth independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG.--Slon02 (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-11/lucknow/32632446_1_pa-sangma-purno-agitok-sangma-presidential-polls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshdce (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Effects on Social Behavior

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

Written like a personal essay or synthesis article jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very poorly sourced and reads exactly like an essay. Even if the topic could use an article, this is not the way to go about doing it and there is nothing salvageable from this collection of original research.--Slon02 (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 speedy; I agree with MQS DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ybarra

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

Article fails to meet our sourcing requirements for biographies, as it has maybe one independent published source that refers substantially to the subject. Steven Walling • talk 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no relevant sources that establish notability. To me the article also looks more like promotional material than a neutral article. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not yet notable enough for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G-11 Delete per WP:PROMOTE and WP:COI One article in the quite local Inland Valley Daily Bulletin does not equate to WP:SIGCOV, but it is quite difficult for a talent manager and acting coach to find enough coverage to be considered worthy of note... just as this one does not. And while a sense of promotion might otherwise sometimes be addressable, we would need reliable sources for verifiability... and we lack them. I find a COI in that we we have a SPA author User:Itmstudio writing about the person who runs "In The Moment Acting Studio".[1] Coincidence? I think not. Hope the author reads WP:NAU and does not attempt to promte Ybarra or his company here. I think it best that his IMDB resume link to Wikipedia becomes a deadlink. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Four square#Downball. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downball

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

Clearly a local activity only and therefore breaches WP:Notability and WP:V unless WP:CITE can be fulfilled. Only reference is a single YouTube video – Richard BB 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh come on. Speedy per blatant WP:MADEUP--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Incredibly, this page has existed since March 2004, with the only reference given in all that time being a Geelong College newsletter article (now a dead link).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

revised speedy opinion above in light of the previous attempts at asserting notability--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speedy. Didn't any of you guys play downball as a kid? The article is terrible and has been hijacked by some kids as a joke, but this is a game played throughout Australia. It might not be notable, I'm not sure yet, but it hasn't just been made up by students from one school. Some sources verifying its existence [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Can't find any significant coverage at the moment, but there may be some out there. Jenks24 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At worst, it is probably worth a merge to Four square because the two games are very similar. Jenks24 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that. I very much doubt there will be sufficient verifiable material to justify a standalone article. It would be nice to be able to include "Downball" as an alternative name if verified by a reliable source.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More than just a local activity. Sadly, a lot of these schoolyard games, rhymes etc. - although they have existed for generations and are widely known - just do not have the reliable sources to support inclusion. Does anyone know of any acedemic research into this sort of schoolyard folklore etc? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—to Four Square. I found a couple of academic things that mention this, although don't discuss it. One of them treats it as a synonym of four square (this one): "Additionally, the '4 square/Downball' item was removed" (it's about an australian questionnaire). The other article, here says that it's also called "jerks" but doesn't mention four square. The mentions are tangential, but at least it's verifiably a variant of four square.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Merge if these things are really the same. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Four Square per alf.laylah.wa.laylah. They're similar enough to occupy the same article, and I think that the consensus here is clear that this article is not notable enough to deserve its own article, at least as far as reliable sources are concerned.--Slon02 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In this area, the game is called "handball". A google search came up with sites like this:[8]. I feel like it is sufficiently different to Four square to warrant it's own article, but unsurprisingly I'm struggling to find some strong sources. Merge at worst. Doctorhawkes (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the game is much different to the game of handball, also there a internation fedation of downball, also listed on this wesites as a unique game[9]. Ray-Rays 19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted G12 by Admin EncMstr. (non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nola Darling (Music Duo)

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

Article lacks any reliable independent sources that verify notability of the subject. They may exist, but I didn't see any when searching offhand. Steven Walling • talk 22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G12, most of the text was copied from this. Despite a few changes, it's still close enough to qualify as copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iredell County Rescue Squad, Inc

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

This county rescue squad rescue squad may not satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. I found only directory listings and apparent passing references at Google Books. Google News archive has some routine coverage of a county rescue squad's activities, along with an apparent looting incident in 1988. In sum it does not appear to satisfy the notability guideline. Edison (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having any independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past outcomes and well-established precedent. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ruth Hussey. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Longenecker

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

No references or sources for notability. Kelly ^hi! 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ruth Hussey. All I could find was an LA Times obituary.[10] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Buckley

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

Seems to fail Wikipedia's notability requirements for musicians and biographies in general, as it lacks any reliable, published sources independent of the subject. Steven Walling • talk 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. (Social media sites don't count.)Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO applies and I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, was g11 advertising, now a1 no context. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sellsumer

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

Page consists of nothing but WP:OR with no assertion of notability. The author seems to have a WP:COI and has removed a PROD template. The page have been deleted once already, under WP:CSD G11. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No context. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall

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

As per consensus previously established, articles relating to UK general election results in individual counties are not noteworthy in the scheme of UK politics. Cornwall does not have a devolved legislature like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so the results in the county are not of any significance. Furthermore, the articles are essentially a compilation of constituency articles, and including results for individual counties would result in potentially thousands of new articles - one for each county at every election.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

--Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see an overwhelming consensus for deleting all these articles in the Essex AfD linked. In favour of the retention of these articles I would say that many readers will tend to look for information on a county by county basis - particularly given the more transient nature of constituencies as compared to counties. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - one argument of the consensus previously established was of WP:OR, but the exclusion criteria of WP:CALC allows for this type mathematical calculations. So I'd say we'd have to examine the worth/notability of a grouping such as this. I'd say that the fact that the politics within Cornwall warrant a Politics of Cornwall article, with associated references (as well as others that are election-based Cornwall-specific, such as [11]), show a diversity that could only be captured with Cornwall-specific articles. Zangar (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One precedent in Wiki does not make a rule, as you well know. Cornwall is not Essex, and has been pointed out Cornwall has a distinct place within British politics if not necessarily a separate status. These articles are not OR in the strictest sense, as they collate already existing information from external sources. Wiki is not the first source for this information. doktorb _words^deeds 07:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2010 United Kingdom general election. The above comment does not explain why Cornwall has a distinct place within British politics. I would argue that it does not, and irrespective of the personal cultural identities, Cornwall is part of England as far as UK general elections are concerned, and does not have any other notable political status. By the above arguments, one could make a case for "2010 United Kingdom general election result in Yorkshire", which also has a strong cultural identity. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment one could indeed make a good case for such an article for Yorkshire, and indeed any other county. There are already articles for some counties, and at least one city. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment further take a look at Category:United Kingdom general election, 2010 for other similar articles. I am a little concerned that the nominator is going "one county at a time" instead of nominating all the articles at once. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't realised there were other counties besides Cornwall and Essex, and indeed I didn't know if it would be right to bundle Cornwall and Essex in together. This stuff is new to me. Should I add the other counties to this deletion nomination?

Also, it is quite ridiculous to have articles on a county-by-county basis, particularly given that counties do not have any significance in UK general elections. Having articles for the sub-nations where devolution now exists is understandable, though for counties it is not.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've now added the other articles for the reasons above. Apologies for not noticing these earlier:

These county/city sub-divisions are not notable in UK general elections. Media outlets usually only focus on results over the regions of the UK, particularly the sub-nations and London following devolution.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and there are articles for other years as well, still un-nominated. Could I ask that this AfD be put on hold until Jonesy1289 has a chance to identify all the appropriate articles? I would also ask if he could consider as a courtesy mentioning the nominations on the relevant county Wikiprojects? I've already informed the Cornwall WikiProject. It might also be beneficial to inform the UK Politics wikipriject, as its members are likely to have knowledge and expertise in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I appreciate you are opposed to the deletion of these articles, do you think you could help a little bit too? Clearly this stuff is new to me, and I am struggling to find all of these articles (which rather demonstrates the concern of having thousands of irrelevant articles all over the place). As for notifying the county Wikiprojects, well again, that's a lot of work - one for every county/city/other irrelevant sub-division. It may also lead to a bias in the vote since individuals involved in the relevant projects would no doubt favour keeping such articles - 'county nationalists', and all that. I have notified the UK-wide politics section as I thought this would be the most relevant.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found what I think are the last of them:

Many of these articles are poorly referenced. There is also no consistency in the approach.

How does one go about establishing a policy on this matter? In my opinion the policy should simply be that sub-national sub-divisions are acceptable to write articles on. Indeed most media outlets already do this (unlike for the other sub-divisions nominated above).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well done for finding those. But could I suggest that we don't list Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire here and you list that in separate AfD, as here we're looking at individual results for counties rather than candidates and the arguments for each will no doubt be different.

I'd say that the best place to establish a policy of consistency for these types of articles would be at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, but lets leave this until after this AfD, should these survive. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep all. Theres a tiny bit of value in these, not much though. They could be sourced but probably never will be, because its tedious stuff. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These articles are not OR, they record the results of the UK general election, which by consensus is notable enough for inclusion. Wiki is not paper, so they are not taking up space. They are linked from each of their respective election main pages, and to each other. This deletion could allow the precedent to discontinue separate articles for Scottish and Welsh electoral history. doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above comment is a double vote by the user. Regarding the arguments made, well as stated throughout, articles for sub-nations should be kept as is commonplace in election analysis. County election results, conversely, are not documented by mainstream media, and they are thus clearly not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesy1289 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a double vote, however there are no delete votes at all, that should tell you something. Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Quite simply put, all these election results are notable and encyclopedic. I think a deletion review should happen for that abortion of a previous AfD that strangely ended in delete. Lugnuts (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Would be preferable to ask the closing admin to overturn to no consensus first, its a lot of hassle for a decision which he'd have taken in a few seconds. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evidently the results are not notable - this is why Wikipedia has been the only place to collate the information. Indeed it seems to me that some county articles were created in response to sub-national articles - which are relevant in a post-devolution environment - despite the county articles not being relevant in themselves. It seems the county articles were created based on a misunderstanding.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. These pages do not carry significant amounts of information by volume and could easily be merged into the County pages under the common section "Governance". The information then being at the main article level is more likely to be kept up to date and the need for individual pages is lessened. Where these pages list individual constituency results in addition to the county summary, then these should already exist on the constituency pages and do not really need to be repeated. I do not totally agree with the proposers arguments on notability, as WP:Notability is satisfied in most of the guidelines listed, IMHO. That said, the last guideline, presumed, leaves these pages open to nomination for deletion. As previously noted in this debate, the fact that the Essex article reached a consensus does not automatically make it apply to all other similar articles.Rimmer1993 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for officially recognised administrative areas as per http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf Which could be added to many as a source.--Harkey (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then merge into officially recognised regions. The quality and format of these article vary and some of the divisions are somewhat arbitrary. They also, in the main, lack the sourced analysis that differentiates encyclopaedic pages from collections of statistics. Having said that, this type of information has a place in the Project and I think that merging into regions provides the best chance of coherent and structured presentation with some worthwhile analysis. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL articles listed in this AfD for deletion - Then perhaps merge into one consolidated article. The information is inherently encyclopedic.Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and have a deletion review for the last one. There are 43 articles that begin "United Kingdom general election result in" [12]. You can find a list of elections year by year in each area. Category:General elections in the United Kingdom And of course such articles existed for other nations as well. Dream Focus 15:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change from delete to merge I actually agree with the suggestions above about merging these articles into regional articles. The county-by-county results could be given in articles which cover regions, and this is consistent with having sub-national articles (which could otherwise be described as regions of the UK).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall which I recently closed as delete. The reason being that the consensus was that Essex wasn't a sensible unit around which to discuss election results. To my mind there need to be reliable sources discussing Essex Election results as a unit. If there are not then the issue will be whether the actual subject is independantly notable of the nationwide election results and whether the content is OR or SYNTH. It strikes me that we actually need to address this across the whole set of articles. I'm not going to close this AFD but if I were, I would be minded to refer the whole subject back to an appropriate wikiproject with a request for a project wide RFC to reach a clear overarching consensus on what the best regions/areas to build articles around would be. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The best regions to merge these into would be as is the case in the BBC election map. Most media outlets break results down into the constituent sub-nations of the UK, though some outlets do break the results in England down into the English regions. I am yet to see any media outlet give county results. I commented in the UK Politics WikiProject about the suggestion to merge the articles a few days ago now (see here).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a few for Cornwall (this being one). Zangar (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm that this information is already on the wiki in organised by other geographical units (it sure seems to be) and then Delete all. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Boughton

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

Non-notable minor league baseball coach and player. He was de-prodded with no explanation given. Google News results seem relatively sparse and the hits that do exist seem to be very routine. Alex (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per insufficient coverage, failing GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Sophia Taylor

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

{Person does not exist Szndav8 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - this royal person most certainly exists; this nomination is in bad faith. Whether she's notable is another question. She's the second cousin of Prince William. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of this person on the net. Does not appear on http://thepeerage.com/p10558.htm#i105577, and it should know Porturology (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person appears to be a hoax. The persons who are described as being her older brothers and younger sisters are all listed here and here. But she herself isn't. This leads me to doubt the subject's existence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 07:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ealing Charity Christmas Card Shop

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

non notable charity shop, fails WP:GNG, PROD declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a pretty long search and the only things I really found were links to this wiki page, adverts, and newspaper vanity pieces. Of the links on the entry, most are of the "we're open, buy from us and volunteer" puff pieces and/or don't show anything that would establish notability. Having a flood in the store doesn't really show notability. There isn't anything to show that this is notable, despite its good intentions. Being open for a long time and participating in charity isn't enough to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. It'd be lovely if it was, but that's just not how it works. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete There are a lot of charity Christmas card shops in the UK, some of which have a much larger turnover. I note that the particular trading model is claimed to be distinctive, but the profits from most or all such shops go to charity and all have some costs if only from the manufacture and distribution of the cards themselves and heating and lighting the shop. Some will have paid managers, others not. As explained above, what makes one particular shop notable for Wikipedia is not the alleged superiority of the trading model but determined by guidelines intended to establish whether it is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory of commercial or non-commercial trading establishements. --AJHingston (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being of purely local interest. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel James Wood

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

No sources provided for notability. Kelly ^hi! 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Liambas

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

Non-notable lower league hockey player, fails criteria of WP:NHOCKEY as well as the GNG. Sources which are not routine coverage, are ONE EVENT coverage of his suspension. Favoid (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Favoid (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of significant reliable sources. One event is not an issue because WP:BLP1E requires that "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." But reliable sources do cover this player in the context of other events, even if that coverage is less substantial. And this player is not a "low-profile individual," he is a professional hockey player who gets coverage and is viewed and recognized by many fans of his team. In any case, the article about the 2nd suspension is not routine and covers a 2nd event. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't call this routine coverage, nor one-event. Sources provided prove the subject meets the GNG, and the article is much better formed than some of those that get kept automatically because the player meets NHOCKEY. Canada Hky (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reasons enumerated on the article's talk page as well as those posted here. Above and beyond the notability demonstrated by the multiple sources referenced in the article, the incident involving Liambas and Fanelli has been consistently referenced in the cases of other players making what some consider to be excessively physical plays, such as Tomas Kuhnhackl on Ryan Murphy (here), Patrice Cormier on Mikael Tam and Zack Kassian on Matt Kennedy (here, here, here, here, here, here and here), Brendan Shinnimin on Josh Nicholls (here) and Alexander Ovechkin on multiple players (here). Physical plays (especially hits to the head) are a major issue in ice hockey at the moment and Liambas is extremely relevant in that context. I think that qualifies him for notability better than meeting the NHOCKEY wicket that only suggests that he might be notable. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Patil

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

Notability issues. WP:ONESOURCE Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about an Indian anti-corruption activist. A reference to a print newspaper is included. Pramod Patil entered in the active crusade against corruption in the Maharashtra, with a group of his friends and social activist started to Nukkad Nataks for public awareness, using nukkad nataks addressed the issues like Bal vivah, Polio. (Nukkad natak?) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment— this newsbank search (paywalled, sorry) turns up 49 hits on "Pramod Patil", but none of them are about this guy, and there is none on the date cited in the article for the times of india, which is included in the database, or any other paper. It seems to be a fairly common name. however, the reference in the article says Pune, which is probably a local edition. i think the database has only the mumbai edition. "nukkad natak" means "street play" and isn't an organization like the caps in the article might suggest, but an indian form of protest. "pramod patil" + nukkad got zero hits on newsbank, although "nukkad natak" got hundreds.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else good comes of this, I have at least redirected nukkad natak to street theatre. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The lone reference is also jinxed. See here for the epaper of "Times of India",Pune edition,(28 march 2011),page 23 from the archives. The article given here on the "Multilingual plays are a latest treat for theatre lovers" and not about the given person. Moreover the search for any news regarding this person in the whole of "Times of India" archive edition gives this result.Thus it fails WP:GNG and WP:RS.Even search including pramod patil+rajiv dixit and pramod patil+anna hazare draw a blank.Just supporting Anna Hazare or Rajiv Dixit does not create notability.I think "49 hits on "Pramod Patil" " occur because there is a person with the same name in banking related to "State Bank of Mauritius"(See this ). Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—Per above discussion, especially the fact that the article from the Pune edition of the T of I turns out not to actually be about the subject of the article, and there's really nothing else available.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sources, even (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) isn't promising. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per checking by Vivekananda De--tAlK - article subject fails WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Thomas Holley

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

Non-notable musician who is part of a non-notable band. The article fails WP:N and WP:MUSICIAN. Trusilver 00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 and salt. JohnCD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I had previously speedied the article but the user persistently recreates it. causa sui (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it while I was in the middle of creating it without even waiting for references or even asking me if there were any. -Davereject (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article has been around for three days now, is there any chance some of these sources might be forthcoming? Right now the only thing I see is a puff article that contains no reliable secondary sources. Trusilver 14:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "puff article"? How are those references non-reliable source? The Austin Chronicle, Alternative Addiction, Texas Musicians... these all seem to fit your criteria for notability. Correct me if I'm wrong. And even still "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." On top of the fact that there are at least 3 separate articles that exist on Wikipedia that reference him; 1, 2, 3. I don't see the problem. Davereject (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSICIAN for the criteria for articles on musicians. As far as other articles go, just because there are other articles that shouldn't be here, that doesn't mean yours should. (note, I haven't actually looked at those articles, therefore I'm in no way judging their suitability or lack thereof.) Trusilver 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at that page. My point wasn't "these pages exist, so should his". Just that on top of the references, which meet your criteria of notability, there are pages which are unquestionably notable (no tags for deletion) which make reference to him. Which should lend some evidence that I'm not just making a page for some yokel who started a band and played a few shows around town. Davereject (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I've manually relisted this month-old AFD since it seems it was never posted in the first place. causa sui (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSICIAN. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 03:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gak

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

Non-notable one event performance. Ridernyc (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a standalone article because as the first nomination (over 6 years ago) said, it's a glorified jam session. However merge what exists of it into an article about the subsequent tour. On that note, I'm surprised there's no tour article (or I can't find it) since it seems like it would have been a major one, compared to the plethora of tours for bands of much less notability. Shadowjams (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Merge and delete" is not a valid option due to Wikipedia's licensing requirements. If content is merged, the original article must be kept as a redirect for content attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSIC, specifically criterion 6, which says that notability may be established if the article's suject "[i]s an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." That's not concrete, but for me, "may be" changes to "is" if the jam session involves musicians as notable as these guys. And the nomination statement's claim of "one event" may be incorrect; while there's no source, the article states the group has performed twice. CityO fSilver 20:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source, although it reads like that source could be sourced to Wikipedia. A quick Google indicates this might be a hoax, since I can't find a single source better than the one I just added. I might switch to delete as a hoax if there aren't better sources. CityO fSilver 20:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to one of the members. Sourcing is necessary, not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 03:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson

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

Not notable per WP:PORNBIO. Anderson is up for the 2012 AVN Award for Best New Starlet, but the winners aren't announced until the ceremony in two months. CityO fSilver 20:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 AVN Award nominees have not yet been announced.[[13]]--Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Not sure where I got that from, then. It wasn't her Twitter bio, since that claims she's already won it. CityO fSilver 23:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably can be speedily deleted under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:GNG, Wikipedia:PORNBIO and Wikipedia:ANYBIO--Cavarrone (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 03:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sheridan

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

Fails WP:GNG, notwithstanding paltry awards, similarity of name to Nicolette Sheridan, and porn appearances with her husband. See WP:INHERIT. The "article" is a single unsourced sentence, followed by a resume, sourced just about entirely to unreliable sources. Wikipedia is not a resume-hosting service. WP:NOT David in DC (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. There's simply no there, there. The few awards don't confer notability, per WP:GNG. ~~Please do not use the Porn WikiProject's now-deprecated Pornbio criteria. Even if not deprecated, they~~ The criteria in WP:PORNBIO are not a way of evading WP:GNG. ~~If they were still in force, they would be the~~ They are the start of the conversation, not the dispositive end of it. If a BLP meets WP:PORNBIO but fails WP:GNG, WP:GNG controls. The stage name seems calculated to play off of the name Nicolette Sheridan but that's hardly notable, and no source is cited to suggest it is. Appearing in porn with a husband who has a colorful stage name is not notable either, per WP:INHERIT. David in DC (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When was WP:PORNBIO (note working wikilink to criteria) deprecated? Can you provide a link to where that was discussed and/or enacted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct, it was not deprecated. I was wrong, having taken for accurate assertions in the third AfD for Gabriella Fox and in the second for Rachel Starr. I apologize. I've amended my entry accordingly. David in DC (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gabriella Fox is exactly why WP:PORNBIO should exist. It sets the minimum requirement for someone who otherwise lacks the media or scholarly coverage needed to meet the general notability guideline. Having looked over some of the sources offered in that AfD, and despite the closure, there is clearly not enough mainstream significant coverage of Fox to meet GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Jarkeld (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO, especially since she's won two AVN Awards in different years. If PORNBIO is deprecated, why is it still listed at WP:BIO? CityO fSilver 21:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, it is not deprecated. please see my explanation, and amended "delete" rationale above. I apologize. David in DC (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes PORNBIO with her two AVN awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. And to the nominator: the GNG does not trump other guidelines. As Delicious carbuncle explains, the GNG is set in place to assist editors in determining notability when SIGCOV is present. The SNGs are set in place to assist in determing notability when SIGCOV is not present... just so long as assertions are verifiable. As both being part of WP:N, the are set to work in concert, and not in disharmony. Missing in GNG does not automatically equate to non-notable. Missing an SNG does automatically equate to non-notable. And if or when PORNBIO is actually deprecated, we will still look to WP:ANYBIO and then have new arguments about the notability (or not) of her various genre awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:PORNBIO or per WP:ANYBIO (criteria#1). AVN Awards are not "paltry" awards, are undoubtedly the most known and most relevant awards in adult industry. And the argument about unreliable sources is a typical argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Finally, this is not a case of WP:INHERIT, her stage name is similar to Nicolette Sheridan, Ok, but who cares? This is not the first nor the last case of a stage name chosen to remind, honor or exploit someone else's fame and Wikipedia wasn't created to judge stage names. --Cavarrone (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our readings of the interplay between WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG differ. In this case, I believe WP:GNG trumps WP:PORNBIO. My WP:INHERIT citation is about her husband, not Nicolette. I did not intend to say AVN awards are paltry, but rather that these two, one of them a group award, are paltry. The hard-and-fast (yikes, pun NOT intended) 2 awards rule suggested by PORNBIO is one of its great weaknesses. And in biographies of living people, per WP:BLP, strong, multiple, reliable sources are imperitive. IMDB, IAFD and Sheridan's own web page are not WP:Reliable sources, so we're left only with AVN, and that's only good for the awards. So we're down to the awards. They're not enough to meet WP:GNG even if they satisfy WP:PORNBIO. This biography of a living person should be deleted or userfied, without prejudice to it's being recreated in Mainspace if it can be sourced to the standards of WP:BLP. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. The SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. GNG is set for instances when SIGCOV is available. The SNGs are set for instances when SIGCOv is lacking. As both are parts of WP:N, they are intended to work together, and not to be set at odds. The standards of BLP require verifiability of assertions, not significant coverage of assertions. They are two different concepts, although related. Verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV... if found in RS suitable for the topic being discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has won two awards which are significant in her field. Passes WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar decal

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

Unreferenced and badly written article. Article should either be deleted or reduced to just a couple of lines and merged into Decal. There was clear promotional intent here when the article was created by Tarcalgraphics (talk · contribs) - as a company of the same name makes guitar decals. Biker Biker (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Terrible article but possibly an encyclopedic topic. Guitar decals have been around for decades in the punk rock world. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just hit me that Woody Gutherie and his "This Machine Kills Fascists" sticker is the father of guitar decals. So call me "Mister OR." Regardless, I'm adding a graphic and putting up a flag for Rescue Squad. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 02:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archon (software)

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

non notable software (We need a CSD for things other than music!) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies, clicked save too early. Two journal articles now added as references, showing the need in the archival community that Archon was built to address. Benuski (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Barely 8 minutes into this article's creation, this was nominated for AfD. This nomination appears to violate the AfD guideline. It's also rude to treat an article creator this way. PolicarpioM (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after Benuski added sourcing (although I can't access the sources directly) I'd prefer to err on the side of inclusion here. Editors with more knowledge of this subject matter might be able to suggest possible candidates for merging this information if it can't progress much farther than a stub. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above or merge to Encoded Archival Description. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion can continue outside AFD if a merge is still desired. –MuZemike 02:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Kuro

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

Product line that really never got anywhere, not particularly notable. Alexandria (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a revolutionary technology, perhaps we could incorporate it with Panasonic Viera. MonkeyKingBar (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability clearly established by numerous reliable sources cited by the article. --Kvng (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pioneer Corporation, which is where the notability appears to be. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is directly demonstrated for Kuro in the refs. Reviewers appreciate the performance of the product not so much the fact that it is built by Panasonic. --Kvng (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; nomination withdrawn with no delete!votes. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Macko

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

De-prod'd by Alex, I held off on AfD until the list became more manageable. This is another minor league player and manager with no significant coverage or notability. Winning minor league championships does not make one notable – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to this book he served as a coach for the Chicago Cubs in 1964, which I think would give him presumed notability. In addition, he is not just "another minor league" player, but one with significant time at the highest levels, and who was apparently at one time among the top 10 all time in minor league home runs [14] (note that BD later claimed that this list was outdated and gave an updated list here), and a member of the Texas League hall of fame [15]. In addition, there seems to be a good amount of coverage of him, e.g., [16], [17], [18], [19] with less significant additional coverage here, here, here and here. Rlendog (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant accomplishments as a minor league player, manager and executive... plus his involvement with the Cubs College of Coaches in 1964. Spanneraol (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I goofed on this one. I could've sworn I checked it thoroughly, but clearly I did not. Nomination withdrawn. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wray Query

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

De-prod'd by Alex during all of that mess, I held off on AfD until the list became more manageable. This is another minor league player and manager with no significant coverage or notability. Winning minor league championships does not make one notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple independent sources. I only see trivial mentions, nd the article is currently only sourced with references to a stats site. If the article is worth salvaging, it would have saved the community's time if Alex had assumed good faith and better explained his de-PROD—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through about 30 old Sporting News articles, but couldn't find anything beyond transactions or WP:ROUTINE coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fails the current guidelines of WP:BASE/N. If anything, Alex deprodding the article without an explanation was in fact the bad-faith action. He did absolutely nothing to improve the article to where it satisfied one of the two major guidelines for keeping a minor league baseball player/manager. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Ost (East)

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

Seems to be a content fork of East Germany. I redirected to the existing article, but this was undone. I believe this should be discussed more broadly, so bringing it here. My opinion is this should be deleted or redirected to East Germany. Sparthorse (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but merge some of the later material into Ostsiedlung, which is better written and more comprehensive but has a note stating that it has inadequate coverage of the Nazi exploitation of the issue and of the urban/rural angle; this article has some coverage of those. I note that the German in this article is poor and that Ostsiedlung has many interwikis (potential sources of information to improve it as well as evidence of its being the better title) as well as much better overall coverage; so yes, this is a fork, but not of East Germany and possibly created in ignorance of the pre-existing article. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This article obviously needs more improvement to make its purpose clear, but the information within it is well-researched and the article fills (or at least is intended to fill) a valuable hole in the documentation of how Germany's colonial practices before the Third Reich, led to the concentration camps and wholesale exterminations of World War II. (Note: there is no intention to make the Holocaust this article's central issue; rather, the emphasis is on Germany's continuing efforts to create colonies for Germans, '\at the utter expense of the indigenous populations.)

The editor who suggests that this article be deleted but some material moved into the article on Ostsiedlung, may not have really read that article, which appropriately deals with the gradual migrations of populations in mediaeval times, and not at all with colonies of modern states, created by 'fiat'.

Several editors have suggested that German Ost (East) might need to be better named. I welcome their suggestions, as I also welcome the constructive criticism of those who are better-versed in German than I (Osten versus 'Ost'). I would have liked to have named this article "Wartheland" or something like it, except that the history of Germany's eastern expansion is older than Wartheland; and that area has borne many names in its history.

I am continuing to add relevant information and wikilinks to this article, as well as improving its structure and language. I request that editors re-examine this article as it continues to evolve.

Please note: this article is linked to from Eugenics; specifically, the section dealing with Eugenics in the German African colonies, Pacific colonies, and now the link here to the East European colony, Wartheland. Virago250 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not quite clear on what the article is supposed to be about. While it quite clearly has nothing to do with East Germany (different period, different territory) and is distinguishable in subject from Ostsiedlung (which is largely about medieval German eastward expansion), the article as it stands seems to contain a mixture of material about nineteenth and early twentieth-century Prussian and German Imperial policy to non-German ethnic groups in Prussia's more eastern provinces, aspects of German colonial policy in the same period, and Nazi treatment of conquered populations in Wartheland and the General Government. My guess would be that the article is supposed to be primarily about the last of these, but also to give it a historical context - but it doesn't currently seem to fit together to do this. Almost all of the information currently in the article either is already, or could be, included in Germanisation - but I think that, whatever the justification for my already mentioned concerns, this article is trying to give a legitimately different emphasis from that article. The question is whether it manages to do so coherently. PWilkinson (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think PWilkinson basically has it right. It's not about East Germany (post WWII). It's not about the Ostsiedlung (middle ages). It's not exactly about the German colonial empire in Africa either. It seems to be about plans/projects/implementations of the colonial policy of the German empire, then the Third Reich, within Europe (more specifically Eastern Europe). Both the time period (late 19th, pre WWII 20th century vs. middle ages or post WWII) and the geographic focus (Eastern Europe vs. outside of Europe) make this a distinct topic which anyone familiar with the history recognizes as notable and pretty broadly covered in sources. The one thing that I'm not sure about is whether German Ost (East) is the appropriate title. There is probably a better/more used one out there. Basically, this article needs (aside from some clean up) a renaming rather than deletion or merge. The topic is notable and well-covered, it's just that the editor who created the article picked a somewhat confusing name. Volunteer Marek 00:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Drang nach Osten, and the later sections of Ostsiedlung and one of the tags at the top of it indicate that it is intended to cover the nineteenth and twentieth century as well. Hence this article seems to me to largely consist of what other editors have intended to have at the end of Ostsiedlung; but perhaps Drang nach Osten is a better home for the material. In any event, the separate article strikes me as unduly polemical in focus; I do not think it should be treated separately, but in the context of the overall history of German eastward expansion. (Also the title is ungrammatical. The noun is Osten.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Drang nach Osten, and the later sections of Ostsiedlung and one of the tags at the top of it indicate that it is intended to cover the nineteenth and twentieth century as well - neither DnO or Ostsiedlung are actually that relevant here. The sections there are sort of an "aftermath", in a way a transition between their subject matter and this article. In any event, the separate article strikes me as unduly polemical in focus - agree, but this is a POV issue not a notability issue or reason for deletion. I do not think it should be treated separately, but in the context of the overall history of German eastward expansion - mmm, why not? If there are sources which deal specifically with this time period and this phenomenon outside of Ostsiedlung or DnO then a separate article is fully justified. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to East-facing colonial policy of the German empire (or similar). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete; the article tries to establish a connection between the Prussian Settlement Commission, the German colonies in Africa and the Holocaust of World War II, that's WP:OR to say the least. The article's main-thesis is completely unsourced, the sub-topics are more or less unsourced: Fn.1 refers to Christopher Clark allegedly claiming the Settlement Commission sold farm land to "armed German peasants in the Polish East." In fact Clark says nothing at all about "armed peasants" [20]. Fn. 2 refers to Heimat (film), a German TV-series of the 1980s about a village in the Hunsrück region. How such a soap is supposed to prove a claim about the banning of “intermarriage between Germans and African natives" is completely unintelligible to me. Fn. 3 "see Georg Forster" - what are we supposed to see at Forster's article? (BTW: Wikipedia is not a source) Fn. 4 – 7 seem to be accurately summarized, but do not at all support the main thesis.

In short: Some of the sources might be used to expand the specific articles (Ostsiedlung, German colonies, Holocaust/WWII in Poland), the current compilation is POV-pushing Original Research. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many scholars draw connection between racist policies of Prussia and later German Empire in its conquests in the Eastern Europe and later behaviour in Africa, as well as pointing out influence of German genocide of Herero on policies in WW1 Eastern Europe and later genocide during WW2. This is a valid topic. If needed additional sources can be added and scholars named.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to German colonization of Central and Eastern Europe. The article is excellent source of information regarding this topic. There is no reason to delete it, and personally I want to applaud the creator for making this fine addition to Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research. The claim has been made that the article German Ost (East) is entirely based upon original research, and has no other support academically. This claim is false. I was very explicit in mentioning Kristin Kopp, "Constructing Racial Difference in Colonial Poland", in Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, Lora Wildenthal (Eds.), "Germany's Colonial Pasts", Univ. of Nebraska, 2005, pp. 76-96, which is usually considered an unbiased academic reference, and covers the material I discuss. The book also gives further references.

If there is any question about what Christopher Clark says, this is referenced in "Germany's Colonial Pasts", in the chapter mentioned. If there is any dispute about this interpretation, I for one don't mind correction; however, it does seem as if the Wikipedia editor who objects is entering into his own original research, since he is in contradiction with this book.

The claim that "Heimat" does not deal with intermarriage between Europeans (Germans) and Africans in German South West Africa, is without any basis. I have tried to elaborate that the policies against mixed marriages (miscegenation) were developed in German South West Africa and these very same policies, for the very same reasons, were continued in Wartheland. I cannot change history; it remains true no matter how much the editor opposes it. As I've tried to point out, this policy was the work of Paul Rohrbach. However, no claim was made that "Heimat" is an "academic" source; only that specific reference is made in the article by Kopp to Heimatliteratur. Kopp seems to feel that this is relevant, as it is a reflection of how Germans thought, and think. Thus, the objection is to the article by Kopp (specifically citing Maria Wojtczak, Literatur der Ostmark: Posener Heimatliterature (1890-1918)). I do not think that past and current German attitudes towards this history are irrelevant; nor do I believe the academic works referring to it are irrelevant. I think it is up to the Wikipedia editor to show why s/he feels that no one should know or discuss Heimat academically.

Primary access to German Ost (East) is through Eugenics. Eugenics covers the subject, including different countries, colonies, etc. In some sense, Wartheland was a colony or a proto-colony of Germany, and not only was the question of miscegenation influenced by its colonization of other countries (for example, the colonization of German South West Africa), but it would be very hard to deny that genetics experiments, twin study experiments, etc., were performed at Auschwitz. (Recall Eugen Fischer's work in German South West Africa, as well as during the Third Reich at the KWI-A.) I provide a photo of a slave laborer working for I.G. Farben at Auschwitz, wearing the OST badge. Multiple connections between different colonies and Germany is a historical fact. If Wikipedia editors wish to deny this, they must also deny the existence of this photograph, or they must enter into aspects of Holocaust Denial and maintain that the experiments mentioned above did not take place. These issues are precisely what German Ost (East) elucidates. If there is a disagreement with the facts cited, the editors should say what they are.Virago250 (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence fairy

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

Notability. Magister Scienta ^talk (8 November 2011) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into some better-established article such as consumer confidence or animal spirits. Warden (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the term "confidence fairy" certainly turns up a lot in a Google search, there is no hard evidence that all uses of the term can trace back to Krugman's use, and since Krugman's creation of the term (rather than the term itself) appears to be the point of the article, without verifiability, the article really has no point at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources for it's content. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syndication format family tree

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

WP:OR, virtually no content. It can't reasonably be redirected anywhere, as this is an obscure search term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a layperson, I can't tell what this article is about, I have gained no knowledge by reading it. No references whatsoever. 78.26 (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and 78.26. However, if this is something meaningful, I would not object to it being merged to another page where it would appear in context. Whatever this is, though, it's probably not a topic unto itself; more likely it's an illustration of information about another topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A useful diagram could be created for this, but you'd need to start from scratch. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstealer Records

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a few references to BAND by this name, but not the label. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Label appears to be notable, with numerous signed bands and releases. There's a lot of fluff to wade through in a google search, but I think the following sources might help to establish notability. [[21]], [[22]], [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], etc. 78.26 (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Distributing records of bands who may or may not be on the verge to notability doesn't translate into notability for the label automatically, especially when the label is a guy wih a website. Hekerui (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. only small mentions in gnews. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ben Sainsbury. –MuZemike 02:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jail Bait (short film)

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

Non-notable short film, does not pass WP:NFILM. At first glance this source seems useful, but this is neither "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" nor "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release", as required by the guideline. WP:BEFORE hasn't turned up anything better. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The only source at hand is indeed good but simply not enough to meet the WP:GNG, and I can't find any other coverage of the film, only one passing mention [26] — frankie (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ben Sainsbury, per MichaelQSchmidt's reasoning below. For what I've seen online the director does meet notability, so a redirect is the best outcome for this title — frankie (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The noninator is incorrect to require "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" and "at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release", as they are NOT "required" by the guideline. They are only offered in the guideline as attributes that if existing could encourage searches for reliable sources. Point here being that the MacLeans article as offered IS exactly what the guideline requires as representative of a reliable source that addresses the film directly and in detail. More will be needed certainly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either actor Peter Dinklage or to filmmaker Ben Sainsbury where this short film may be sourced and spoken of in context to their careers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Sainsbury, as recommended by Michael Q. Schmidt. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FanBusking

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

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism - only reference is to a press release. Appears to be related to promoting the nn band Macanta, which does not have an article. Google search on the term shows only 30 unique results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete There was a brief blurb on that scottish website, but it didn't mention the term, just the band. I agree non notable advert neologism. Although the idea is cool and it might catch on as time goes on. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback it's very helpful. I've deleted the name of the band as essentially this is irrelevant. The technique is the important thing. I do contest the 'non-notable neologism' argument as I feel this is very subjective. One might argue that to be notable one has to acquire vast publicity or be used colloquially; however if notable can also simply mean remarkable, then surely this should be included. It's no big deal though if it gets deleted. It will get written again by someone else when it gets famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eachdraidheil (talk • contribs) 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG as a non notable neologism for a non notable product , service, or web content. QR code is adequately covered in its own article. If it catches on and can satisfy Wikipedia NOTABILITY criteria, and reliable independent sources, it can be recreated, otherwise, try inserting in Wiktionary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Jafeluv (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Women Of Achievement, Inc.

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

Contested prod. The concern was "Non-notable, unsourced puff piece". Jafeluv (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and this text qualifies for speedy delete as entirely unambiguous promotional material. Regardless of notability, the current text here would need to be completely written from top to bottom before being serviceable as an encyclopedia article. I see nothing better in history. A grand and noble woman, Madame Maudest Walls Stewart, of Houston, Texas in 1975 had a long time dream of a legacy for tremendous opportunities for our women to make outstanding contributions to the welfare of one another, our youth, and our country. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio from [27] and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Thanks for noticing. Jafeluv (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of http://www.kcjoseph.net/about_page.html DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K.C. Joseph

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Unable to find any third party, reliable references which would indicate the subject is notable for inclusion. Does not appear to be an significant reviews or information about the novel mentioned in the article "Sinderella: Tales of a Southside Stripper". France3470 (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection the page is a coypvio of [28] so I've tagged it for CSD G12 as well as CSD G11. France3470 (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 02:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong (relative detectability)

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

Strong can mean, umm, intense. One of the least necessary articles I've ever come across.

I am also nominating the following related page because it says the same thing:

Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Signal strength seems much better, and about the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created this article as a target for "Strong" in the disambiguation, in desperation (I think as a third-party editor) when an objection was raised years ago to calling Cygnus X-1 (in its FA review) "one of the strongest X-ray sources" in the sky. I searched (not exhaustively, but at least until I was exhausted) for a reliable source for the usage in vain, yet it is firmly and widely established in scientific and technical literature (from physics to biology, signal processing, electronics, statistics, etc), and generally understood by practitioners and interested lay people. A vast number of examples could be found, a la OED, but listing examples did not seem to formally satisfy Wikipedia sourcing requirements (and listing such examples would seem to be inappropriate WP:OR in any case) so I just decided to break the rules. (I see the definition is no longer linked in from our Strong or Strength disambig pages. I can understand how that might have happened, but it seems to me something is needed to answer the fair question of a [technically] naive editor.)

I used the fussy "relative detectability" qualifier because in practice the term is never absolute, but always used with respect to some practical context, usually implicit, which is often the relative standing among other similar members of some abstractly defined class (eg, cosmic X-ray sources, as observed from Earth), or more fundamentally with respect to some statistically detectable sensitivity floor, defined in terms of a specific relevant observational noise level.

I favored "strong" versus "intense", "bright", or other possible alternative terms (which are also commonly used) as "strong" is probably the most general adjective used in this context. "Intense", in particular, has very specific technical meanings (eg, in optics, signal processing, and radiation transfer theory), which are not synonymous, though it is often used to mean loosely the same thing.

Although formally irrelevant per Wikipedia rules, I hope I will be forgiven for stating that I am a professional scientist (PhD physicist. now retired) with sufficient experience to make me confident that the above assertions are at least "true", though labor intensive to properly verify according to my understanding of Wikipedia rules. Perhaps some other more knowledgeable editor knows just how to do it with reasonable effort. I suppose the correct solution would be to get the term, in this general but technical sense, defined in Wiktionary, but I have no experience with that. (BTW, I appreciate this criticism, at least for my own education here, as I think this kind of situation is fairly general, and probably not uncommon.) Wwheaton (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as WP:DICDEF. Magnitude (astronomy) and Signal strength cover the same topic in far more detail. -- 202.124.73.175 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with these solutions is that they are insufficiently general. "Magnitude" in astronomy is not used for wavelengths far from the optical. The article on Signal strength could in principle serve as a target for "strongest", except that it currently defines it only in terms of radio signals, and would need to be considerably generalized to address the problem with Cygnus X-1, and countless similar cases. Wwheaton (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Miskwito (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Weak delete: One or both could be redirected to 'Signal strength' if that would aid in disambiguation of the term on relevant pages. That seems to be the intended usage (though I'm happy to be corrected on that point), and redirects are cheap. On the other hand, I don't think that deletion would entail much loss of information. Cnilep (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the original objection to "strong" in the Cygnus X-1 article FA review was ill-advised? I think the term is surely not ambiguous for any likely reader, and really should not have been challenged. Yet I could not find any applicable definition in the sources I searched at the time. A dictionary of scientific and technical terms would probably have it, but I had none such available then. Wwheaton (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cygnus X-1 use of the word "strongest" appears to me to have no more than its everyday, prosaic meaning, and not refer to some precise scientific definition, which you yourself admit you cannot dig up. Even if you found such an entry in a dictionary, that would run afoul of WP:DICTDEF. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 02:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Cove Rugby

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

No indication of notability. Vague claims to an alliance with Belsize Park Football Club not relevant to establish notability and current Belsize Park RFC is not the historical club anyway. noq (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated to previous editors, I am working on wikifying this entry. I believe it should stay. I have deleted obviously "personal" edits and believe several points of fact will be a useful addition to wikipedia's coverage of New South Wales Rugby Union, Australian Rugby and related material. The Club is cross referenced in other wikipedia articles like Kentwell Cup and Ken Yanz. I will proceed with improvements. Picturesk (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This club is one of the oldest in the New South Wales Suburban Rugby Union, it has won the Kentwell Cup and Judd Cup more than once and also won the Whiddon Cup and Jeffrey Cup. The Club was a leader in Subbies during the 1960s in particular and remains in existence to the present. A number of major players have played with the club, including Wallabies Ken Yanz and Saxon White, as well as other notable Australians including John Singleton (Australian entrepreneur). The article itself has now been expanded and sourced and dubious material deleted. Citation tags have been added for remaining unsourced material.Picturesk (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no independent sources that show notability. The club itself is not particularly old and there does not appear to be anything reliably sourced about any significant claim. There is nothing about Saxon White, the given reference to John Singleton does not even say he played for them - only for a team they were associated with. Most of the sources given are to tables that do not show any notability. The club itself appears to be an amateur club with no clear claim to being significant in the pre professional era. noq (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are independent sources that demonstrate notability (I am defining notability at least as requiring the winning of important competitions and producing national and state representative players). For example, the links to the New South Wales Suburban Rugby Union show that Lane Cove won the Kentwell Cup more than once and this is the major Sydney suburban trophy. The site also shows they won several other trophies - (what it doesn't show is that they were frequently in the finals of these competitions as well - sorry not sure how to source this for the moment). Furthermore, Australian Rugby Union The Game and The Players by Jack Pollard is a definitive source on Australian rugby by a major sports journalist and it notes Ken Yanz started at Lane Cove. There were plenty of contemporary news reports on John Singleton's involvement with the club. I will search for links to more definitive example than currently linked.Picturesk (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has some longevity, and also a couple of notable players.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's in the fifth division. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply The seniors are currently in 5th Div, but historically were successful in First Division. And given that their juniors are thriving, and tour internationally to New Zealand, the seniors may only be in a temporary slump.Picturesk (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some links to some of the news stories, even old ones it will go a long way to keeping this article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, John Singleton (Australian entrepreneur) entry now confirmed by 2008 The Daily Telegraph (Australia) article and Ken Yanz by 1957 The Advertiser Article.Picturesk (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Good in the Hood

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

This television show does not appear to meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. I can't find it (or it's creators) listed on IMDb. I found many trivial ghits, but I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources or anything else that would indicate notability. Beloved Freak 10:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, no indications of notability. Appears to be part of a SPA efforts to promote the projects of the individuals involved, such as Ya heard me bounce documentary, Ya heard me bounce, and Bounce video. MikeWazowski (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but . . . . This public access show about Bounce music has a rather wide presence on the web, but I haven't found much of anything in reliable sources, so I think it will be difficult to make a case for its notability in Wikipedia terms. Having said that, it bears noting that the associated documentary does have a bit of coverage (e.g.[29][30]) and seems to be recognized as "the first bounce documentary film" and a significant work about this notable music genre. As best I can tell (not having access to the deleted material), the proposed articles about the documentary were overly close copies of publicity material and thus deleted per WP:COPYVIO. However, it appears to me that content on Ya Heard Me (documentary) could be neutrally written and independently sourced, and if so could sustain either a small article of its own, or maybe could be incorporated into the Bounce music article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 07:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petrol prices in Bangalore

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar content issues:

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

Wikipedia is not price comparison service. Although there are references, this article will be exceptionally hard to maintain in the future and has no historical data. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If petrol in Bangalore is "a black hole of subsidies", that can be mentioned in Bangalore. And when I saw this the first thing I thought was "The weather in London". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this is very plainly WP:NOT stuff. Gosh, we could have a page on Rice Prices in Chipping Sodbury! Come to think of it, I'll go and create it now.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about history of petrol price since when it was around Rs.5/L to Rs.77/L, and price build-up information for those who are interested to know things. It will have chart of all these soon with reference. I think its worth for Bangaloreans, if your Rice price article is worth at your place, then go ahead and create it. If it is useful to someone.Prasannatb (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the point here is that it's not encyclopedic. See WP:NOPRICES. There is an enormous number of imaginable tables of Price for {Commodity x Place}. If we had 10,000 commodities x 10,000 places we'd get 100 million articles just on price histories, dwarfing the 3.7 million articles on everything else on Wikipedia. It makes no sense, as my example was meant to illustrate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly not encyclopedic - even if it was it would be impossible to be inclusive and current Porturology (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, Then please delete Price of petroleum, Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing, Historical fuel prices in India, Gasoline prices. But I don't see any Rice prices article or any other articles of commodities. petrol price worth It. so let it be.Prasannatb (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I have made an AFD for Historical fuel prices in India. Gasoline prices is a redirect to Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing and it and Price of petroleum are well written articles describing the theory and practice of setting fuel prices rather than meaningless lists tracking the price of X in Y. Perhaps they could be merged and I will give this some thought. Porturology (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing#Typical_gasoline_prices_around_the_world, according to you I think it is also meaningless lists tracking the price of X in Y, so please delete it. What do you mean by well written, my article is just first rough draft, still my article needs more information, charts, photos and references. It will be improved. If you people are not behind for deletion only.Prasannatb (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started a discussion on replacing the table at Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing#Typical_gasoline_prices_around_the_world with a graphic that makes meaningful comparisons possible Porturology (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok thanks, anyway I'm giving up the article. I'm happy that few changes will be done because of this discussion.Prasannatb (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTDIRECTORY.--- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Already I got the same feedback from Bushranger, No need of saying it again in same discussion. I think you are always busy in editing your user page. Let’s not waste server memory for that.Prasannatb (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please comment on the content, not on the editor. What an editor works on is relevant not at all to the points being made here, nor to the articles under discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I have commented on what he has said, that its repeated comment. If he can comment on my work, why? I can't comment on his work. Prasannatb (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the context of this debate, we're talking about the merits of this article. What another editor does or does not edit has no bearing whatsoever on that subject. Quite the opposite. Comments on this article are appropriate because this debate was create to talk about this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its not encyclopedic Bentogoa (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not price comparison service. Salih (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --WorLD8115 (TalK) 11:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Yoga Society

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

PROD removed without explanation. Searches find no secondary sources which could provide evidence of notability, hence fails WP:GNG. Previous articles Worldyogasociety and WOYOSO with similar content were deleted under WP:A7. Yunshui 雲水 07:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These mentions [31] [32] [33] are all the best I could find, not enough to meet the WP:GNG or WP:ORG — frankie (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marina_Barrage_MRT_Station

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

Station does not exist in current map or future plans. Check http://www.lta.gov.sg/projects/proj_maps_rail.htm Seloloving (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant failure of WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional non-notable station, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Doctors

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

Tagged for speedy G11, then redirected to Arborist. But though the spam has been removed, the page creator disagrees with the redirect and reverted it twice already, and so we're left with something that probably meets speedy deletion criterion A7. This is about an Ontario-based arborist business. Delete then recreate as a protected redirect to Arborist. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 06:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete and Salt - originally started as pure promotion. When this was cleaned up it had little to say and was twice redirected to Arborist and reverted by sole and sole-purpose author. Now could be speedied as non-notable company but author is somewhat intransigent and without an AFD and salted redirect I suspect it will continue to turn up as a puff piece Porturology (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable local business; no indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (& salt if req.) - no indication of Notability of this WP:Local business. (EAB is an "infestation", not a disease, that destroys the nutrient transport and uptake of water abilities throughout the tree.) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot, page redirected. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money manager

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

An article for money management has already been created. See "Asset Management". Pristinegoal (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly redirected to Money management. If nominator would withdraw nom, that would be good. Neutrality^talk 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as moot. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neutrality^talk 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Training Day (Kendrick Lamar mixtape)

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

Non-notable mixtape. The only reference basically just says that it exists. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find only passing mentions for this mixtape in reliable sources (e.g. [34][35]). Minus any significant coverage, this mixtape appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NALBUMS. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Industry News

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

Article asserts notability but fails to provide a single reference other than a link to the website of the publication. No evidence that the subject meets the general notability guideline. It's been a month since the article was moved into the mainspace from draft, and still no sources. Steven Walling • talk 20:09, 24 October 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) 13:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The web site only appears to have minor notability,[36] if any. But the co-founder, John Breeden II, may be notable for, among other things, having been a gaming and technology writer for the Washington Post.[37] Indeed, a bio at the Post links him to the WiP web site.[38] Perhaps a bio of the co-founder could use some of the material from this article? Regards, RJH (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self referenced, non notable site.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the arguments for retention given, in which the latter mainly consist of notability claims without making efforts to pinpoint any sources establishing that. –MuZemike 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monet Stunson

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

Notability is primarily based on making it to Big Brother week two, and the sources on the article and in Google News are low quality. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having a small part in a music video and participating in Big Brother does not really establish notability. The sources provided are of poor quality and are unreliable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the subject is very notable. Falls under WP:BIO, model, actress, beauty queen. Sources and links could be updated and changed so that's really no problem. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - per our policy on biographies of living people, that lack of sourcing is really a problem. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On three episodes of TV and a runner-up beauty queen. Ton of links on social websites, but no reliable, independent refs about her. Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how does this fail WP:NMODEL? It doesn't. The sources need to be updated that's it. This article falls under WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL. I also disagree with you saying it doesn't fall under WP:GNG because it does.☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Consensus This article has enough resources for WP:MODEL, it's just poorly written. Sinfully Wickid (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons already stated. Aequo (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which reason? Article is suitable under WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus WP:NMODEL, WP:GNG. Television actor, notable game show contestant. Beauty queen runner up. Theres a ref that needs to be fixed but other than that, I don't see anything wrong with this article. If you do some good searching you will find some good links I'm sure. Sinfully Wickid (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Good links? If you have any, then please put them forward. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find the significant coverage that would establish general notability. I did find this little time. As for meeting WP:NMODEL, (1) she has not had significant roles, (2) I see no indication of a large fan base or cult following (3) I see no unique, prolific, or innovative contribution which would indicate that none of the points for inclusion on the criteria for models (really entertainers in general) are met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~/Comment - You just contradicted yourself. You said this falls under WP:NMODEL and then you say it doesn't. She is a multiracial promotional model. She has a big fanbase towards being on music videos and Reality Television. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Please, only one !vote per customer. I did not contradict myself. I just indicated that I evaluated this article against the guidelines of WP:GNG, and WP:NMODEL as they are the most applicable with respect to notability. In evaluating against the criteria listed under those guidelines, I was unable to establish that the subject met any of the points listed in the guideline. If you have reliable sources that establish that she has "a big fanbase towards being on music videos and Reality Television", then please present them. I'm always open to re-evaluating my position when presented with new sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I apologize for that. I don't like to argue with other wiki members. I think the article falls under what others are saying it lacks. I will try my best to update the refs and make sure they are properly sourced. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Abramoff

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

Searches for any reliable sources for this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has not proven his prominence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find anything on this gentleman. There's one source here that indicates some tiny measure of notability. He's listed in a patent for paper dispensing. That's it. I feel as if this was trans-wiki'd over from the French Wikipedia's article on Abramoff, but that has neither of the above sources - only this. Clearly, this individual existed, but they're not anywhere near fulfilling GNG. m.o.p 06:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad M. Adileh

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

Searches for any reliable sources for this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I attempted to find any reference on the subject, but failed. Article would be notable if claims could be verified. 78.26 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirov Charjou

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

Searches for any reliable sources for this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete Probably notable, but it's pretty difficult to find any sources. The best I could find was this translated announcement by the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, which also indicates he was elected member of the academy in 1989. However, besides the lack of sources, the article also needs to be moved and copy-edited. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC) Article has been substiantially edited in the meantime. Sources still are an issue, but I don't see any immediate need for deletion. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: cited things - Elected membership of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences - Street named after him in Nukus and being a noted leprosy scholar. The Russian wikipedia article on which this article is based is sourced to "Vesti Karakalpakstan» № 54 (16188) July 5, 1997 - and their and our article indicates clear pass of notability - Minister of Health of the Republic of Karakalpakstan , Rectorship of a Uni. ,membership of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Karakalpakstan - deputy of the Oliy Majlis. Sourcing in English is difficult but our coverage of central asian things seems very poor and it would be a shame to loose this.(Msrasnw (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's difficult for me to tell whether these sources are of any quality. Bare urls hardly help support your arguement. Are these weblinks to reputable sources per wikipedia's policies at WP:Verifiability?4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve the refs and notified the article's creator User talk:Lepesbay about this proposal to delete the article he started. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned this article and Afd at the Russian Wikipedia to ask for help with referencing but there is nothing yet. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Hardly someone will compose such information for any reason. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. There was no Internet those days and after USSR reformation no printing also. (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable, meets WP:BIO. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google books on the author Ch. A. Abdirov produces 2 books. Google Nukus "Ch. Abdirov" shows the street named after him. Google Scholar author:Abdirov Produces cited papers. Seems notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g12, copyright violations. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabikap

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

a mass of original research with no indication of notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was just undeleted in order to add references and I am in the process of doing that now. Any assistance with formatting would be welcomed.psa3rvb (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2011 (PST)

Large sections are copied or closely paraphrased from http://www.sotscm.org/ and it's subpages so it may need to be deleted as a copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It seems to come against not meeting WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E versus the establishment of notability via the sources given (plus the national coverage, some of which were added near the end of the deletion discussion). Neither side came out on top here. –MuZemike 02:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Marie Johnson

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

This unreferenced WP:BLP of a rural Idaho teenager who shot her parents fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. This crime doesn't appear to have even attracted widespread press coverage at the time; all I can find are a few articles in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide. Pburka (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another local news story which is only notable beyond the crime's area by the producers of bad time-filling true crime programs on cable. No real impact beyond that. Nate • (chatter) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the media section tells me another story. Thats this crime has actually been of a kind that are choosen to appear on a number of crime-telling shows. Also I know for a fact that her story got alot of attention because Sarah Marie was only a girl and so young when committing these acts and also sentenced.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you pretend to know for a fact is irrelevant, you are not a reliable source. - DonCalo (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is lacking in references, it does appear that the crime received national coverage. I would be OK with renaming as Murders of Alan and Diane Johnson, however, my preference is to keep it titled as is since it is an attribute of the perp (i.e. her age) which resulted in all the coverage. Location (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and unreferenced. Another parochial case that fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP. - DonCalo (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick search doesn't seem to generate many references to this, but I've added one that I did find. The case itself is a shocking one, but sadly not unique. Maybe if someone can prove it got national coverage in the US (I've also only found references in Idaho media so far) then it could stay. If kept, I too would suggest a move to a more appropriate title. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Try also searching for Alan and Diane Johnson which seems to generate a few more hits about this case. If I have some time in the next couple of days I'll trawl through them and see what's worth adding. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts, but references will not make the case notable. Wikipedia is not a news agency documenting every single murder case. It simply is not noteworthy and should be deleted. - DonCalo (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, and as I noted above, it's not an uncommon case. If references could prove its noteworthiness then that would be a different matter, but I have a feeling this case probably isn't that high profile outside Idaho. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the case is in books and multiple true crime websites and tv shows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned randomly in a book about crime scene investigations and some contemporary TV shows does not make one notable. WP:CRIME requires that historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. - DonCalo (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does according to WP:GNG, as a matter of fact that is the definition of notability. I haven't a clue what a "random" mention in a book is. The Wikipedia article Macromantics is random when discussing Sarah Marie Johnson, since Wikipedia gave me that article when I hit "random article". A full page discussion of the evidence from the investigation in a book is not random, by any definition, and it is just silly to suggest it. ABC News and CNN are the reliable secondary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a heads up to let people know someone has moved this to Murder of Diane and Alan Scott Johnson. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG as there are now multiple sources referencing this case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E--Kylfingers (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing it as no-consensus so it can be started over without the vitriol, nationalism, and personal abuse--and after a short time for some improvements--at least a week. This does not represent any opinion on the merits. However, I advise that the article would be much stronger if the few instances of accidental removal were removed from the article, as well as case of attempted removal, or removal of the foreskin. Personally, I think there might possibly be fewer objections if cases with only a single source were removed also. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 13 November 2011

Amendment (November 19, 2011) It was admitted that the entire article or almost the entire article was a copyvio violation at User talk:Karfks and the article was speedy deleted as such by another admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cases of penis removal

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

This article is Completely unencyclopedic. I hope no one will assume bad faith since I just registered my account today, but I have been on wikipedia as an anon ip before. Not only that, there is probably copyvio in this article if one looks at all the references and uses google translate for foreign language references. It violates Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files.

Violation of selection criterea

It also violateds Wikipedia:LSC: selection criterea states that

"Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself:

If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?

Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?

Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

Common selection criteria

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.

Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

Existing lists are mostly consisted of events which have articles of their own on wikipedia due to their notability For example, see List of serial killers by number of victims, List of assassinations and assassination attempts, List of bank robbers and robberies, and List of kidnappings

almost all of their entries link to articles of their own, List of kidnappings has Mary Jemison, List of bank robbers and robberies has Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza, List of assassinations and assassination attempts has Ehud, List of serial killers by number of victims has Luis Garavito. Very few red links are included

the only two entries at list of cases of penis removal which have their own article are John and Lorena Bobbitt and Sada Abe. the rest are all unimporant cases about a random guy mostly in china, mr joe six pack getting his penis cut off by his wife, they aren't notable, they don't have their own wikipedia articles.

These lists specifically state, "The following is a list of some of the most famous assassinations and assassination attempts. It is not intended to be exhaustive." "This is a list of famous bank robberies, bank robbers and gangs involved in bank robberies."

As far as I can tell from the edit history, this artcile was created since the list was originally at Penis removal, and was getting way too long for the page. To list every single case of penis removal will just cause this article to go on indefinetly until it reaches some garanguatan size. to those who say that we can keep some cases and not others, there is no justification on how one case is more important than the other, and on the whole, cases of penis removal in xxx country is not an encyclopedic topic and completely irrelevant to wikipedia.

This article is damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclopedic (and therefore fits criterea for deletion). And as far as I can tell, someone delibereately focused on China for some reason Bunser (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI one of the images on the article is a fake- File:MonjuBegumEvidence.jpg was copied from barenakedislam, which is an anti islam blog, not only is it a hate blog against muslims, the blog gave absolutely no source for the image, which was most likely fake since actualy news articles about the incident gave no such picture, only a picture of the woman. blogs are not WP:RS and therefore the image has to be deleted as well.Bunser (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on another point- nearly all of the sources used, are news articles, most of them in the Chinese languages. I count a few english language news articles, and even fewer sources from some books, which are for very few of the cases. If one was to purge all news related material from the list, then probably less than ten cases would remain.Bunser (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the list is not well sourced. most of its sources are tabloid like news articles, with only a few books, and most of the articles are in a foreign language- chinese. this list actually constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, by putting together unconnected incidents.

the only cases of actual cultural value are the Bobbit case and the Sade Abe case, both of which are known extensively in the USA and Japan and have had movies made of them. Everything else is essentially random junk. We have a special article for the Bobbitts at John and Lorena Bobbitt and another at Sada Abe

Imagine if I culled news articles regarding every time a burglary happened, and created an article called "list of Burglary incidents", and used those articles as references, while sprinkling in a few book sources about burglaries. My desire to delete the article has nothing to do with the type of content it represents (relating to sexual body parts)Bunser (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Common selection criteria" fails completly. Take a look at List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, for example. Most crashes are non-notable, but the list is encyclopedic and stands up in its own right. Like this one does. Lugnuts (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunser, you jackass, this article has been here and is staying here. I've made this article ten times its original size. Take your butthurt opinion somewhere else, you chink.Nayyurc (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this article isn't the thing thats damaging wikipedia. your precense here is damaging wikipedia, if you've got a problem with the list get your chink ass off wikipedia.Nayyurc (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And bunser nobody gives a shit that barenakedilsam is a blog against muslims. deal with it, its called freedom of speech. And the photo is quite hilarious, it should stay regardless of whether it can be found on another source since it illustrates the situation clearly.Nayyurc (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete. Per my explanation above. Plus its too random, incoherent, and completely non encyclopedic.~~Bunser (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Struck previous "Delete." by Bunser. Bunser's AFD nomination is already there, so an additional Delete !=vote is unneeded and inappropriate. Edison (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list nor a particularly long article. Each case is referenced, and is not in violation of any copyright that I have seen, though I don't speak Chinese. English language sources are given where they are available. I'm not sure one can nominate an article for 'probable copyright vio' expecting it to be there. If any is found, I am happy to rewrite. The article has been well maintained, cleaned up and stewarded for at least a year. It does not focus on China. There are cases mentioned from Japan, the US, the Philippines, Turkey, Viet Nam and many other countries, though it seems to be a practice that happens, or is documented, more in East Asia. It is not trivial but gives contextual detail for each case and is a fine encyclopaedic list. Span (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic (penis removal) is notable. Having a list of cases of penis removal is perfectly encyclopedic, just as we have things like List of unsolved deaths and List of cases of police brutality. It's hardly "indiscriminate", the inclusion criteria is very clearcut. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is it more encyclopedic than rambling list of other losses of body parts, such as testes, breasts, eyes, toes, tongues, fingers, noses, or ear lobes, or lists of females who underwent ritual mutilation of their genitals? Most have one reference, enough for verification but not enough to show that each such amputation was a notable event. Seems like miscellaneous information. Edison (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A random collection of sensational information that deserves no place in a serious encyclopedia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well put together subject on what seems to be a notable occurance. Well sourced and one of WP's better lists, with clear inclusion criteria and plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. The comment of "This article is damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclpoedia" is quite frankly, rubbish (compare the recent Halloween frontpage and Gropecunt Lane, for example). Lugnuts (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a notable occurence.- there are reports in the media all the time about freak accidents, will we compile lists of every time people have their nose chopped off or get severed in half? plus, take the number of incidents in the article, and divide it by the number of men in the entire world, and it will be less than 1%. even dividing it by the number of men in all of china will still end up as less than 1%. Also, Gropecunt lane does not damage wikipedia's repuation for the same reason the articles on sex and penis don't- they are actually relevant, encyclopedic material which appear in other encyclopedias as well, not based on tabloid sensationalism,a nd not exclusively sourced by news articles.Bunser (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"take the number of incidents in the article, and divide it by the number of men in the entire world, and it will be less than 1%. even dividing it by the number of men in all of china will still end up as less than 1%." WTF?! Is that the best rationale you have? Seriously? There are lots of secondary sources from multiple reliable outlets. End of. Lugnuts (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong- the only secondary sources are a few books which describe isoalted incidents of people having their penises cut off, and those books are not even about genital mutilation, one of them is about an orphanage, another about law in soviet russia, etc., I fail to see how the list is documented by "reliable secondary sources", when those few sources for those few incidents aren't even about penises. The majority of the cases are sourced by newspaper articles, and foreign languages ones at that.Bunser (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT then, instead of bitching about it! It's not rocket science to remove them. Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lugnuts has been reported for using swear words and incivility during this debate.Bunser (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage in multiple independent and secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage of each incident in what are mostly primary sources i.e. news articles, not significant coverage of multiple events of penis removal that constitutes a list. We are not going to create individual articles for every single incident, plus, given the nature of this, the list could possibly go on indefinetly until it becomes so big, people's browsers will crash. And again, Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files.Bunser (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder- the list is not well sourced. most of its sources are tabloid like news articles, with only a few books, and most of the articles are in a foreign language- chinese. this list actually constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, by putting together unconnected incidents.Bunser (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News articles are reliable sources. You clearly don't understand this. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you clearly don't understand the fact that the news articles are about each incident, I fail to notice a single source which lihnks all these incidents together into a relevant topic. All of the secondary sources (books) are NOT about penis removal- one is aobut law in soviet russia, the other is about an orphanage in china.Bunser (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Completely worthless as an encyclopedia article, this indiscriminate collection contains very few cases that created significant historic or cultural news value and too many cases of angry anonymous Chinese women running around with knives. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of which, the only cases of actual cultural value are the Bobbit case and the Sade Abe case, both of which are known extensively in the USA and Japan and have had movies made of them. Everything else is essentially random junk. We have a special article for the Bobbitts at John and Lorena Bobbitt and another at Sada Abe, no need for this list.Bunser (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't see a point in including this information beyond laughs. It's like a blog tracking penis removals. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Note this !vote has no policy based rationale. Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice lugnuts fails to point out where Richard of earth said he "didn't like" the topic.Bunser (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I reminded Lugnuts that comiling a list of penis removals is comparable to compiling a list of burglaries every time it appeared in the news, Lugnuts suggested that go ahead with it. I seriously suggest that Lugnuts go over the list of what wikipedia is NOT, especially Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files,and Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, and Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. This list violates all three.Bunser (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts is also abusing the definition of WP:GNG- each of the news articles is about ONE case/incident of a guy getting his penis hacked off, NONE of the news articles are reports on the phenomenon of penises getting cut off in general or lists of men getting penises hacked off. GNG specifically stated that "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". see Wikipedia:No original research- when the editor of the list linked all these unrelated cases, he committed original research- none of the cases were related to each other, and each news articles was about one incident. As I said, stringing them together is orignal research and WP:SYNTHESIS.Bunser (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, or come back when you are relevant. Lugnuts (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "abuse" is used as a synonym for misuse in this case, I fail to see how my comment is an attack, "misuse" is an adjective which describes what you are doing with WP:GNG- ignoring or not seeing the clause that says no original research. You have also failed to assume good faith of User:Richard-of-Earth.Bunser (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input. In fact, I do like the page and enjoyed reading it. I also think it should be deleted. People get mutilated all the time. Just because these incidents involve male genitalia doesn't make them notable. The article has a newspaper feel to it. We're suppose to go "OMG! Another man's dick got wacked!" Statistics about how often it happens is appropriate to Wikipedia in an article context, but not a list of incidents. WP:INDISCRIMINATE apples. If the list is suppose to show how often it happens then it is a synthesis and original research. My opinion stands; deleted it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep in mind your presenting rational for keeping or deleting this article. Addressing each other's or any editor's motives is not helpful to the closing admin. The admin wants to know your opinion of the article and how policy applies. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article really points out a flaw in WP:GNG. Just because something can be cited, doesn't mean we should have an encyclopedia article about it. Another example is Social impact of thong underwear which was closed as a "keep" where most folks who said "keep" blindly followed policy without thinking about it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Do we have a list of homicides? We don't, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (And if there really is any copyright violation in the article, we ought to delete it regardless of the number of votes to keep.) 68.55.112.31 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a heavily sourced article, yes, but I likewise believe it runs afoul of WP:NOT as an indiscriminate collection of information; indiscriminate because in the overwhelming number of cases, no evidence has been proffered as to why this incident or that is notable or noteworthy. We don't have a List of rape victims - and that's a good thing - for similar reasons. The one other reason likewise applies here: that the list is overwhelmingly of cases within the last ten years, the great majority of which presumably involve still-living people, and such sensationalism certainly runs afoul of the intent of WP:BLP. Finally, to those Keep proponents who claim that this is not an indiscriminate list, the main section bears the heading "Selected cases of penis removal" - "selected" according to which "nondiscriminate" criteria, exactly? Ravenswing 02:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I fail to see the deletion nomination make its case. I don't see how WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH applies since this article is not using the events to advance any conclusions or positions. I don't see how this is an indiscriminate collection of information since there is a selection criteria explicitly mentioned in the code that cases need to meet to be listed in the article. Looking through the article's history I see listings being removed because the cases do not meet the criteria. So far, I'm not convinced of this article's nomination to be deleted. Leger (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong- the only entries which were removed were ones that had zero sources, and therefore untenable to keep since they could be seen as defamation. (anonymous ip addreses commenly insert their friends names into wikipedia in order to embarass them). No sourced entries were removed because they allegedly did not meet criterea. In short, the only reason given for removal was lack of sources- not criterea at all

Plus, the selection crieterea itself is orignal research. I could see no source justifying the selection criterea.Bunser (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sorry, but deletion nomination not persuasive enough to me. States 'probably copyvio' but no specific examples cited. States 'indiscriminate collection' but article has inclusion criteria. States 'damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclopedic' is subjective appealing to emotions. States 'delibereately focused on China' places motive on article's editors and ignores possibility subject may be more predominate in that part of the world. Sixpence (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the inclusion criterea has no source itself. The standard procedure for lists on wikipedia is to include cases which have their own wikipedia article, and to have a wikipedia article the event/person must be notable, most of the cases onf list of penis removal don't have their own articles

Existing lists are mostly consisted of events which have articles of their own on wikipedia due to their notability For example, see List of serial killers by number of victims, List of assassinations and assassination attempts, List of bank robbers and robberies, and List of kidnappings

almost all of their entries link to articles of their own, List of kidnappings has Mary Jemison, List of bank robbers and robberies has Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza, List of assassinations and assassination attempts has Ehud, List of serial killers by number of victims has Luis Garavito. Very few red links are included

the only two entries at list of cases of penis removal which have their own article are John and Lorena Bobbitt and Sada Abe. the rest are all unimporant cases about a random guy mostly in china, mr joe six pack getting his penis cut off by his wife, they aren't notable, they don't have their own wikipedia articles.

These lists specifically state, "The following is a list of some of the most famous assassinations and assassination attempts. It is not intended to be exhaustive." "This is a list of famous bank robberies, bank robbers and gangs involved in bank robberies."Bunser (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something's odd about User:Sixpence. His last edit to wikipedia was four years ago in 2007, and that edit consisted of adding entries to the Penis removal article. He came back after four years of not editing for this? Sorry about commenting on the contributer, but this is really odd lookingBunser (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1) No example of copyvio claim. 2) The article does have a selection criteria. Having an article on every entry is just 1 common type of selection criteria. There are other types (see WP:LSC) as long as membership criteria is based on reliable sources. News articles are reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are documents directly associated with people in the events (for example, wife's diary, husband's love letter to mistress, etc.) 3) Advances the claim/conclusion one of the severed penis images is fake because few news articles publish it and original source does not cite its source. One possibility and more likely explanation few news articles publish it because of censorship of severed genitalia in a for-profit commercial product. All the news articles I was able to find with only the woman's image also does not cite their source. It may be more likely as a government entity the police released the woman/penis photos into the public domain and news agencies exercise discretion in usage Esuc (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esuc doesn't seem to understand that blogs are not WP:RS. Bare naked islam is a blog, and search for "monju begum penis" (begum is the name of the woman), on google images, the only place where the image of the penis in the ziploc bag turns up is on barenakedislam. And due to the fact that barenakedislam is not only a blog, but is a hate site towards muslims, renders it unreliable. in Addition, most males in bangladesh are circumcised since its a muslim country. The foreskin on that image was not circumsied, rendering it most likely a fake. Esuc does not understand that the image has to be deleted regardless of whether this AFD succeeds or not, because #1 the ONLY place it was found on was the hate blog barenaked islam, #2, explain why a government agency in bangladesh, a muslim country, would release an image to an american anti islamic blog?Bunser (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also add that it was quite rash for User:Esuc to select a photo from an Islam hating blog to put into the article as Bunser mentioned, since it was neither a reliable source since it was a blog, and the fact that it was openly against muslims should have tipped him off that it was unreliable. I too, searched google images for monju begum, bangladesh penis, the only place where the image turned up was barenakedislam, so it must be condcluded that barenakedislam was the only source which posted the image, and possibly created it.Haydar Haydar (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And bunser nobody gives a shit that barenakedilsam is a blog against muslims. deal with it, its called freedom of speech. And the photo is quite hilarious, it should stay regardless of whether it can be found on another source since it illustrates the situation clearly.Nayyurc (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunser - why are you hounding every Keep comment? Just admit defeat and move on. Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its indicative of your behaviour when you presume that you've won the aFd, when the aFd hasn't even been closed yet. You were the one who attacked me when I replied to Cirt. I have not replied to Tom Morrison's nor Spanglej's comments on this afd, both of which were keep.Bunser (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an attack before you go crying to the admin again. I want further explination to your comment of "take the number of incidents in the article, and divide it by the number of men in the entire world, and it will be less than 1%. even dividing it by the number of men in all of china will still end up as less than 1%." What on earth does that mean? How is this relevant (as in "come back when you're relevant...") Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong comment. You said, "News articles are reliable sources. You clearly don't understand this."Bunser (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. Please explain your "...dividing it by the number of men in all of china.." comment so we can all understand. Lugnuts (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I have to agree about the OP's reference to- Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria, since this list is about living people, to which the conditions at Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria apply to. the people themselves have to be notable per Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria. If they don't have articles on their own they can't stand up to LSC. Rail crashes aren't about living people, they aren't specifically named on the list of rail crashes.Carlosiru smith (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete- As above users said, like User:Bunser, the selection criterea itself requires sourcing in order to determine what entries get selected as part of the list. He provided the link Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria and as I read it, it confirms that the list should be deleted since it doesn't meet the requirements. It does not meet (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. nor does it meet If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance? I also notice from the edit history of the list, that cases relating to european countries like Russia were deleted, while cases relating to non western countries were added. The case on russia was only recently added back, and the majority of the cases are still on third world countries, even though searches for penis removal will turn up a ton of cases in western countries-[39][40][41][42] [43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Seeing as the main contributors to the list used google news, and somehow did not see these cases in westesrn countries, but when I used google news archive tons of these cases turned up, it must be concluded th at there was deliberate focus on non western countries in the list, possibly as a form of attack against them.Haydar Haydar (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

listen raghead, your opinion doesn't matter, the articles been here because I made it this big and you can't do anything about that.Nayyurc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looks like haydar haydar is also butthurt over this article- Arab strap (sexual device). You should stop using it if you're butthurt over the fact that you have no dickNayyurc (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunser and Haydar Haydar, you two imbicile clowns . Its not my fault that women from china and third world countries are mentally crazy or retarded. Stop rrying to delete my article.Karfks (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Keep the article, because Bunser is being an idiot. if chinese women like chopping dicks off due to THEM being a problem, then Bunser should take the problem of with THEM, not me, just because i'm documenting their nasty habits. all his rationales based on policy are just dumb blundering around for an excuse to delete the article. All of us who contributed to the list agree that it is important and should stay, not because this idiot bunser manages to find some policies which contradict the purpse of the list.Karfks (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE Bunser and Haydar, i've worked on this article and made it come to this size. If you two are butthurt because it mentions women of your nationalities on the list you should get the fuck off the article. Also, get a dick before talking and trying to delete my article. Nayyurc (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'- bunser is a stupid idiot and his accusations can have no basis in policy when the articles been here for this long. He is obviously butthurt. If it breaks policy then the rules should be bended since the article was here for long.Nayyurc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. Non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebound ball

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

Made-up thing. →Σ τ c. 02:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 01:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy War (locomotive)

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

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

Are individual locomotives notable? Also Maid marian locomotive. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Individual historic locomotives certainly can be notable, and we have at least 294 articles about them. I wrote an article about one myself. So far, though, I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this locomotive in reliable sources. I'll keep looking, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An individual locomotive COULD be notable, if there were multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of it, but not every locomotive is automatically or inherently notable, any more than every stationary steam engine, truck or every bus. No indication so far that this one satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a directory of every device that ever existed. Edison (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Edison's reasoning. Aequo (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: As the nominator clearly meant to nominate Maid marian locomotive as well from his comment, I have added this to the AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both to Bala Lake Railway. As a note, the third locomotive mentioned there, Alice (locomotive), appears to be notable (if unreferenced). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both meet general notability guidelines, as they are mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Holy War in particularly has the added claim of notability of being the last working steam locomotive in the quarry. Note that I've moved the nominees to Holy War (locomotive) and Maid Marian (locomotive) for consistency.—An optimist on the run! 11:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "being the last working steam locomotive in the quarry" does not satisfy WP:N or any other notability guideline I can find, any more than being the first, biggest, best, worst, or smallest one there. Where is the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources? Having a directory listing or having a passing reference is not sufficient. The "Bala Lake Railway" website ref lacks independence, since it promotes the railway and thus the locomotive. What exactly does the book say about it? How many sentences/words? Edison (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've listed this debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Another AfD.—An optimist on the run! 11:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move articles while they are at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has this been policy? It's your opinion essay, which you only wrote this morning.—An optimist on the run! 17:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was policy. It's just that this seems to be happening a lot lately, and partially breaks the AfD template and AfD closing scripts when it's done. Hence my essay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Holy War was the last steam loco working not merely in that particular quarry, but in Wales according to the AA reference and in any British slate quarry according to the Bala railway[50]. It has also been the subject of reports in mainstream railway magazines[51] (no doubt many times, if anyone can easily verify), and has been discussed in books and newspapers.[52] Wheeltapper (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 sentences (in a sidebar) stating standard required maintenance? ... not exactly an indepth discussion discussing the Loco's notability. While, I would contend, any quarry having the "last steam locomotive to work in a British slate quarry" would be better notability for the Quarry. Merging it ALL and makeing 1 very comprehensive Article (with no doubts about WP:Notability) would be a more intresting Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Railway Magazine is a major magazine in its field, albeit a vaguely specialist field, and seems to consider the loco(s) notable enough to write news stories about (OK, it is a short report, but a story below is about Warren Halt railway station and that seems to be worthy of an article). Does anyone have an index to check back for any other mentions? BR standard class 9F 92220 Evening Star has an article, it isn't just part of Swindon Works despite the main reason people know about it (or at least the people who follow these things do). Also, I'm not sure that we can assume that everyone who might want to know about a loco will know where it once worked or where it is located at any given time. Wheeltapper (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF having an article does not affect this Article. The redirs would point them to where all the relevant info about the Loco's and their entire working environment is. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bala Lake Railway. I just don't see any claim to notability, much as I like steam locomotives, that justifies giving these particular locomotives their own article. They could easily be covered in the article on the railway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While few steam locos this side of Sodor are ever going to be notable from the point of view of the man on the Clapham rail-replacement bus, as someone with an interest in railways I have heard of these two as individual locos (unlike some others listed in the "Preserved narrow gauge steam locomotives of Great Britain" category). Being the "last steam locomotive to work in a British slate quarry"[53] sounds notable to me, but almost by definition such info is going to come from people with an interest in the matter.

I think the locos might have moved around to different railways rather than just been at Bala(?), so that might not be the place to merge them. There might a case for a merged article on Hunslet quarry locos?

Are there any established guidelines on what makes a loco notable? Googling suggests "Jack the Station Cat and the Great Little Trains Robbery" features Holy War, so there is an "X in popular culture" angle. Plenty of GWR locos seem to have their own pages, yet GWR locos all look the same :-) Wheeltapper (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redir to Bala Lake Railway. As much as I like Loco's, I just don't seen enough to support the WP:Notability of each loco's individual Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the loco were to move to another railway, as steam locos in general sometimes do, would we then need to demerge and merge into that railway's article (if it had one?). Wheeltapper (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that, If and when it happens. We know the 'pedia will never be finished because all/most Articles continually need updating. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, sources used demonstrate that the GNG has been passed. Both locomotives have had extensive coverage in magazines such as Heritage Railway and Steam Railway. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Wheeltapper and User:Mjroots. The Steve 08:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, convention has been that individual preserved locomotives, especially if they're still operating, are generally considered notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While a few doubts have shown up, no other arguments for deletion have been brought forward. –MuZemike 01:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individualistic culture

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

Original research essay, non notable neologism, one source Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources which discuss the concept and contrast it with collectivist cultures. See Communicate!, for example. Our editing policy is to improve such weak starts, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this all developed from Geert Hofstede? Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory [54] Dream Focus 11:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Triandis' 1995 book Individualism & collectivism seems to be cited a lot. Here's paper of his which can be read. There's plenty in there about the topic. Warden (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i don't know about hofstede, but i'm guessing that a lot of it was taken from this web site (or maybe the website from here, although given the newness of the article i doubt it). it's tweaked enough so that the duplication detector report isn't convincing, but searching in the ashland.edu page for phrases from the article at hand is pretty darn convincing.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and since any relevant information that could be added to this article is seemingly already in Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. Yaron K. (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of User:Warden, this is a very salvageble topic, of upmost importance to wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I dunno, isn't this a fork of Individualism? Now, admittedly, that page is bogged down with philosophy gunk — but aren't we talking about the same thing here, albeit in the lingo of sociologists? Carrite (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Disneyland Paris. –MuZemike 01:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Hall Restaurant

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

Establishment isn't notable by itself, no notability is even claimed. Might be CSD candidate, but I felt AFD was a better venue. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disneyland Paris, while the restauraunt isn't notable, redirects are cheap (and take up less sever space than deletion, not that server space is an issue, but still). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge It doesn't appear to need it's own page, but possibly the main points of the stub could be moved/merged to another page. The Euro Disney article doesn't really appear to be the place for it - but possibly one of the Disneyland Park (Paris) "daughter" pages? If there isn't really a place for it then maybe one could be created for these types of little Euro Disney "stubs" to be grouped together since I'm sure this most likely isn't the first (or last) time a page for one of the "smaller" Euro Disney attractions like this was created. They're not really "notable" in and of themselves, but as a new "daughter" page - such as Fantasyland (Disneyland Paris), or Disneyland Paris restaurants, etc, - they might make a nice little article (again, that is - if there isn't already a pre-existing page where it would fit nicely.) --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, given the additional sources added during the relist. –MuZemike 01:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David W. Tucker

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

Ok, this appears to be the last of the creations of Drlesmgolden (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets remaining. Golden created several other articles that have all now been deleted because they turned out to be puffery based on weak, marginal, or unreliable sources. Here is what I believe I am seeing in the current references:

[55] a user created website, created by Les Golden
the second and third ref are seemingly the same, [56] an obituary that does verify some of the claims in the article
The fourth, according to the article text itself, is merely a letter to the editor written by one Les Golden.

For more background on this situation:

Beeblebrox (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequately sourced. The foreign tours could be notable, but they're not properly sourced, and they're likely self-sponsored tours (common) rather than paid concerts (which would imply commercial success). I also don't see any critical reviews of the person or his music. In short, this appears to be Golden's way of saluting a former mentor upon his passing - a simple misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia's purpose. Rklawton (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No adequate sources. And I'm afraid this is not the last one: University of California Jazz Ensembles... --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added. Dmeros (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have two purposes. One is to verify the content of the article. The other is to establish the notability of the article subject. The sources you have added are the website of the California Band Alumni Association and the UC Jazz homepage. Those are fine for verification purposes, but they are of no value in establishing notability. What is needed for that is substantive coverage from reliable sources that are completely independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hardly someone will compose such information for any reason. Common sense is good enough evidence. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment FWIW, in the last two hours, the above user has added Keep ivotes to 12 AfDs using about the same text.Objective3000 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And climbing.Objective3000 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for disruption. Rklawton (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Thank you for guiding me. The two new articles shows he's "notable." The jazz writer is editor of several music and jazz magazines. I didn't want to just copy it so I put it in a note. I hope that's okay. The article probably needs editing now but please don't remove this material that shows he's notable before the wikipedia judge can see it. Thanks. Dmeros (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the four new references, five references now verify content. Two references by reputable, independent sources support notability. I believe all criteria for retaining the article are satisfied. Thank you. Drlesmgolden (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Drlesmgolden has a conflict of interest as the subject of this biography was a personal friend of his. Rklawton (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can not accept self-published websites as reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in Jazz educators journal : official magazine of the National Association of Jazz Educators that were removed need to be checked. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question So is it your position that all editors of this journal are automatically sufficiently notable for a biographical article? WorldCat lists 17 Jazz instruction and study related journals. Are all the editors of all those journals notable, too? And if I publish on my website something about me being an editor of one of these journals, can I have an article, too? Rklawton (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that many libraries have archives of this magazine which may be consulted. One need not depend on copies of articles on self-published websites. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Hi. I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding here. The writer/editor of the Jazz Educators Journal article about Dr. Tucker was John Kuzmich. You can go back before it was removed to see that. Dr. Tucker did not write the article. Dr. Tucker didn't selfpublish the article. Thanks. Dmeros (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volitan

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

As far as I can tell this boat was never actually built or developed into an actual product. The page seems to be a plug for the company that designed it. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article needs a lot of work, but the design appears to have won some notable awards. Something doesn't need to have been actually built to have a Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure how notable the award actually is. There is an article on the International Design Award on WP, but as far as I can tell this isn't the same International Design Award as the one that was given for the Volitan. I cannot really judge the importance of this award, as it is totally out of my field. My impression is though that the award is relatively minor (although I admit that this impression is largely based on the low number of followers [178] on Facebook...)(http://idesignawards.com/). I agree that it isn't that important if it was built or not if it had a major impact on the field of boat design, but I am really not sure that this is the case here. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to have been a blip of coverage in 2007, e.g., [57], and [58] but does not appear to have any sustained coverage or interest. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we discourage WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing. However as a design that received awards, it might just be notable. Do we have list articles on these awards? If not, perhaps the awards are NN, in which case the boat design is perhaps also NN and should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Casual web search readily indicates notability (e.g. mention in Popular Science). --Kvng (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion significantly outweigh the reasons for retention given, which has failed to address the significant concerns of sourcing. –MuZemike 01:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lluís Brines Selfa

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

A Spanish composer. I'm unable to find any reference about him, reliable or unreliable. I can only find Wikipedia pages or stuff derived from Wikipedia pages. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was in the Liceu from Barcelona, his name must be in any program of concerts of the years that he was there (1956-1973). This time was by the way the modern golden age of this theater, and so only for that he is an important person. Furthermore, he wrote the anthem of his native village. This is well proven, and it is a thing that can not be said of all the people. So for this reason, he is also important. 22:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC+1) Simater
Delete - Actually, nothing is "well proven". None of the sourcing in the article is to a reliable source. I cannot find any coverage about him. I understand that the period in which he worked may not be well covered by Internet accessible sources, but at this point, there is nothing to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add some relevant information to article. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Looks there was no Internet those days and no printing also. (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavd (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Comment User Lavd has just been blocked for disruptive editing at AfDs and removing tags. Bgwhite (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any online sources about the subject. It is possible of course that there are offline sources, but for what I've seen I think that the subject is actually non-notable, and thus such sources would be scarce and perhaps too local. The subject's work is pretty much limited to being a local musician; the best claim for notability is that a pasodoble composed by him has become a "kind of official anthem" for his hometown (that particular verbiage can also be found as the description for the video being used a reference). That the song was composed by him is verifiable (for instance [59]), but there's no reliable source supporting the claims, only the videos where the song can be heard accompanying certain official acts — frankie (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a new reference, that shows that, even though there were two previous anthems of his native village Simat de la Valldigna, the one composed by Lluís Brines is the one that has had more success. So he is important enough also to be in the Wikipedia. Furthermore, the fact of having become a professional musician, and having been able to study in the hard years after the Spanish Civil War shows us the value of this person: It was rather difficult for a person that came from the lower classes, like he, to study and become a professional musician those days. He can be an example of the triumph of the will, and of the overcoming of overwhelming difficulties, and so he deserves to be in the Wikipedia. Simater (talk) 14 November 2011
- Comment I just removed the new reference. Blogs are not considered reliable references. I understand your love for Mr. Brines and sympathize with you trying to keep his article. However, from Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Peter

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

Lack of evidence of notability. Sources are not independent, only briefly mention him, don't mention him at all, are of doubtful reliability, etc etc. (PROD contested with no reason given) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources cited. Elton Bunny (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The recent Forbes.com interview cited in the article certainly appears to be substantial coverage. Here is an article in the Chicago Tribune [60] and a feature in Lumino Magazine [61]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Also remove any references from pages he's listed on. --ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 19:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but WP:JNN is not particulatly helpful. Can you explain how the coverage of the individual as in multiple reliable sources is somehow not worth our consideration? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Epic Rap Battles of History", which redirects to this page, is certainly notable, as interviews and articles about "Nice Peter" demonstrate. The Jade Knight (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's some sourcing of note in there, for sure the article could be improved, however. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard of Nice Peter and wanted to know more. I knew I could count on Wikipedia for information. The Huffington Post and, especially, the Forbes references were relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandfeller (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I second the above post. After hearing one of his singles appear on my pandora.com station, I also immediately thought to look him up on Wikipedia! http://www.pandora.com/#/music/artist/nice+peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.102.185 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The subject is discussed directly and in detail in multiple reliable sources. IE: Chicago Tribune,[62] Lumino Magazine,[63] Center Stage, [64] The Indie Band Survival Guide(ISBN 0312377681), Chicagoist,[65] Illinois Times,[66] Metro Times,[67] and Forbes.[68] While certainly the subject's name causes numerous false positives in searches, I find that ones about HIM are independent of the subject, address him directly and in detail, and of suitable reliability. Any perceived problems with other sources can be dealt with through regular editing and do not require deletion of a demonstrable notable topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 16:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anathema (play)

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

Non notable play (we need a CSD category for things other than music!!!) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found that demonstrate notability (e.g. no reviews found searching Anathema "Virajas Kulkarni"). - Pointillist (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage, especially in the news. Fails WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of question-and-answer websites. No consensus to delete or merge. However, as no consensus results in keeping the article, I am sure the majority of the delete !voters would agree that two articles on the same subject are not needed. v/r - T P 16:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of question and answer websites

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

Promotional list that has no value to the encyclopedia. Dave Dial (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're under the false impression that lists of commercial entities are necessarily promotional, possibly because communicating information about them "promotes" them? Such indirect "promotion" is not our concern, as long as the topics are verifiable, notable, and written in neutral language. All but three of the entries in this list have articles, which means this is an index of notable article topics organized by what they fundamentally are, and giving objective information about them without any promotional or POV language. It is no more "promotional" than a List of search engines or any other list in Category:Internet-related lists. Though is "question and answer website" the best way to index these? I don't know, but that's a question the nom has not raised. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really under any false impressions, and I would say that a collection or list of mostly message board forums or user generated 'answers' isn't on par with search engines. Per WP:NOTDIR, what Wikipedia is not, among other reasons, the page should be deleted. If we remove the obvious and borderline forum sites that are nothing more than spam, the 'list' is pretty thin. In any case, thanks for your participation. Dave Dial (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indefinite scope / non-notable intersection. I am unable to find, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, an agreed definition of "question and answer website", or any suggestion that this intersection of topics is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. PLEASE NOTE ALSO the duplicate page List of question-and-answer websites. Regardless of whether this one stays or goes, the duplicate content should be deleted or merged. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the duplicate; obviously one of those should redirect to the other after any merging has been performed. It isn't a "non-notable intersection" because it's not an "intersection". It's just a singular list of a specific kind of website, in the same way that list of backup software is more specific than lists of software. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an intersection because there are two criteria - it must be a website, and it must deal in questions-and-answers (presumably - still not sure what the definition of "question and answer website" is). An entity may presumably deal in questions and answers without being a website (one can picture a Q&A book, or TV program), or be a website without dealing in questions and answers, so it's an intersection of topics, and a non-notable one at that. Also your response raises the suggestion that the list only exists so that it CAN be a list - that is, it's not an aid to navigation or an assistance to encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. It would therefore fall foul of WP:NOTDIR. (But look, the world's not going to fall down whether this is deleted or kept. :-)) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The obvious value of such a list is to assist navigation. The basis of the list is notable per WP:LISTN; for example, see here. Warden (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty convinced with the insights of postdlf and Warden. I'll be surprised to see better insights than these in this discussion. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both 'question and answer' articles per WP:NOTDIR. WP:LAIR is another article that is duplicate, but more complete. Mamyles (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article can be useful.--Kaspo (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect List of question-and-answer websites to this page. This is the better laid out of the two and at some point we're going to have to delete or redirect the already pre-existing page to this entry. I debated a long time about this but I think this does squeak by notability guidelines per the arguments given by Warden and others. It passes notability... for now, but just barely avoids being a list. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect this page to List of question-and-answer websites, and merge the two lists. The hyphenated name is less ambiguous.—Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOW. All these two articles are is a list of various web sites that have a section where people can ask and answer questions. This article may help people who want to know how to get answers for questions, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, that's what Wikihow is for. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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